Library card redesign

Have had a chance to take a shot at re-designing library cards. The idea is to make them clear and as easy to understand as possible. Took some input from Ankha's blog post and some from Self Biased full sleeved stuff. This design works with the standard "boxed" image artwork on cards, so all existing artwork should work with the redesign. If I have a chance will work on a crypt card also. Figured this was worth a new topic; so broke it off the the full bleed one. Amaranth Deck Building Tool : VTES NZ : VTES ANZ Facebook

> Ke. wrote: > Have had a chance to take a shot at re-designing library cards. > > The idea is to make them as easy to understand as possible. Took some input from Ankha's blog post and some from Self Biased full sleeved stuff. If I have a chance will work on a crypt card also. > I like very much the separated areas for the inferior / superior effects and the big discipline icon in each. I'd like to see how it works out for cards such as Force of Personality, if you have the time (it's a dual-type card with some lengthy cardtext). The left stripe gives a strong type insight (I suppose we could imagine it being a bit prettier and more thematic, but that's a prototype) and the text areas are cleverly disposed over it, reducing the wasted space. I'm no big fan of the cost being repeated in the black text box. How does it work with a card with a blood cost and a "only usable before range is determined" clause, such as Thoughts Betrayed ? Great ideas anyway. Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

Yea, duplicate of blood cost is not needed. NC Russia

> Ankha wrote: > I like very much the separated areas for the inferior / superior effects and the big discipline icon in each. I'd like to see how it works out for cards such as Force of Personality, if you have the time (it's a dual-type card with some lengthy cardtext). > I'm not sure what card you're thinking of, but it's not Force of Personality. I was thinking of a card like Elemental Stoicism for much the same reason, though.

This is why I choose a complicated anarch card as one of the examples — if the format call manage this; it can manage any card. A lot of text and complicated. Below are versions of the other potentially difficult cards mentioned: In terms of having the cost in text next to the icon this serves a number of purposes: 1. It helps new players differentiate between pool and blood (just like labelling the card type) 2. It allows the current artwork to be used on cards with small text 3. It would look odd having it empty as the black box ties all the elements together This format is far more space efficient compared to the current cards — so it should be able to cope with any current content. Amaranth Deck Building Tool : VTES NZ : VTES ANZ Facebook

Here's thoughts betrayed: Looks OK — of course exceptions can always be made. On this card I also moved the image credit / copy write text up. I think this can work providing the balance is struck between legibility and not distracting from the main text. Amaranth Deck Building Tool : VTES NZ : VTES ANZ Facebook

> jamesatzephyr wrote: > > > Ankha wrote: > > I like very much the separated areas for the inferior / superior effects and the big discipline icon in each. I'd like to see how it works out for cards such as Force of Personality, if you have the time (it's a dual-type card with some lengthy cardtext). > > > I'm not sure what card you're thinking of, but it's not Force of Personality. > > I was thinking of a card like Elemental Stoicism for much the same reason, though. > Elemental Stoicism is a dual discipline card. Force of Personality is a dual type card (Combat / action modifier). But you got it. Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

How would a political action such as Veles' Hunt look in this new design? I am mostly concerned about the amount of redundant information that can be given in the side bar. V:EKN Website Coordinator

i super like where you're going with these. Would you be able to email me your working files? I have a few ideas for improvement; Will say more when I get home from work in a few hours.

Good ideas, mate! I think Ankha already expressed everything I thought about the examples. I REALLY like the clear and crisp way of presenting info and separating different discipline levels is A Good Idea TM. Also presenting critical info on the black bar ("Only usable once per round" etc) is stupidly good! I also think that the sidebars could be made look prettier and cooler (with some subtle designs and such). All in all, very solid and well thought improvements! Finnish Politics!

> Ankha wrote: > Elemental Stoicism is a dual discipline card. > Force of Personality is a dual type card (Combat / action modifier). > But you got it. > Elemental Stoicism is both, and with way longer text than Force of Personality. Which does raise the question - why does the Force of Personality redesign get the combat and action modifier icons next to the levels, but the Elemental Stoicism redesign doesn't? In other news, I'm very much impressed by the Thoughts Betrayed redesign, since it is now cheaper and in Potence, which seems very much better than the current card text.

> jamesatzephyr wrote: > In other news, I'm very much impressed by the Thoughts Betrayed redesign, since it is now cheaper and in Potence, which seems very much better than the current card text. > With a cool layout, every card looks more powerful Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

Here's what I like about the design: it's crisp, simple, and clear. I really like how the black box is transparent, and how you've flipped the image to make up for the fact that this isn't a full bleed card. It's subtle and brilliant. I like the use of the white text on black to denote qualifying text. Minor quibbles: The sidebar needs better textures, but i'm assuming this was intended as a mock-up to show that the design can work. The expansion icon placement is inconsistent, and the card name could probably be moved up further, rather than existing so far south on the card. The in-text icons seem a little on the big side, and it can end up eating a lot of space in the text box. The text boxes could also Major hurdles: the actual sidebar needs to have the fade transparency added, period. There was an egregious amount of butthurt over this when Camarilla edition was released. i'm working on my own take of these using the current backgrounds. right now

Ke's classic version of Zillah's Valley, with the current Master texture and fade: and the Self Biased twist: going into Hard Mode for some of the other examples now.

Since using sleeves is a thing, the designs need to work with the silver hologram dot. What about icons in the text box? Pool drop and capacity disk in the above example? I am amazed at how many new card games (LCG, CCG, deck builders) have not learned from the long history of CCGs regarding card lay-out, icons and fonts. As VTES players, we collectively hold a huge amount of historical, institutional knowledge of CCG's. I suspect this group could do a near perfect re-design/lay-out of the cards. Very exciting work so far. David Tatu V:EKN Scribe

> Damnans wrote: > How would a political action such as Veles' Hunt look in this new design? I am mostly concerned about the amount of redundant information that can be given in the side bar. > Here's a complicated political action card: Looks clean and simple — even with more information. Amaranth Deck Building Tool : VTES NZ : VTES ANZ Facebook

> Lönkka wrote: > I also think that the sidebars could be made look prettier and cooler (with some subtle designs and such). > I agree, they could be improved — however I think it's very important that they are not too busy and too distracting. What are the most important parts of information and how best to convey these? I would argue: 1. Card type — easy to arrange and clear to new players 2. Requirements / Cost — knowing who can play what 3. Effects — what the card does 4. Artwork — looks good, easy to recognise the next time you draw it / see it play 5. Title — yes this is quite low on the list, however it's importance only comes into play when announcing the card 6. Set — semi redundant now, but adds flavour. 7. Illustrator / copyright — possibly legally required but just adds noise. Given that cards are already chock full of information; any additional noise like complex borders or busy textures only adds to confusion. This is more critical if you consider the card type the most important piece of information — so any improvements to the side bar would need to be subtle. The other positive of a simple side bar is that it does not distract from the main Artwork — which should be the focal point in this regard. Amaranth Deck Building Tool : VTES NZ : VTES ANZ Facebook

> self wrote: > and the Self Biased twist: > Too much noise; what's important is the information — not the texture. Amaranth Deck Building Tool : VTES NZ : VTES ANZ Facebook

> Ankha wrote: > > > jamesatzephyr wrote: > > In other news, I'm very much impressed by the Thoughts Betrayed redesign, since it is now cheaper and in Potence, which seems very much better than the current card text. > > > With a cool layout, every card looks more powerful > Power up. Let's GO! Yeah; it was late... Amaranth Deck Building Tool : VTES NZ : VTES ANZ Facebook

a little more...

anddd... i'm spent for the night. let me know what y'all think. there's a bunch of awesome shit that can be done with variable sized text boxes with this design, but i'm pretty sure programming the pathfinding algorithm to determine the optimal sized text box is going to be one giant kick in the urethrea. Ke, this was a genius idea, and if we ever manage to cross paths, drinks are on me. It was a pleasure and a delight to play around with them.

> Ke. wrote: > > > self wrote: > > and the Self Biased twist: > > > Too much noise; what's important is the information — not the texture. > the amount of texture in the box can be easily changed. I think i went with a 30% opacity over a white background.

To print! — time to compare to actual cards: Bummer, turns out the first few characters of the title are VERY important. Actually, this offers an opportunity to simplify the card further and reduce icon noise. Since we now name the card type we can drop the icon to make space for the title — this has the bonus effect of the player only having to match discipline icons. Win! Here are some direct comparisons: Amaranth Deck Building Tool : VTES NZ : VTES ANZ Facebook

> self wrote: > let me know what y'all think. > I think there's too much going on. Once the cards are printed clarity becomes even more paramount (see previous post). Also icon size and alignment needs to be consistent, as does padding, margins and text alignment. The redesign allows for left aligned text; which is much clearer to read — providing the left hand column is aligned. So all text should be left aligned. Amaranth Deck Building Tool : VTES NZ : VTES ANZ Facebook

I realize that this is probably by design, but I'm not a fan of the super plain side bars. some texture goes a long way in helping identify card types. You've also left in the icons in the text boxes for Force of Personality, and it's a little confusing. If you'd do me the honor, by all means print out my offerings on your design. I'd love to see them side by side with yours.

> self wrote: > If you'd do me the honor, by all means print out my offerings on your design. I'd love to see them side by side with yours. > Sure; I think I have enough ink in the printer for one more (it's been "empty" for all of these!). 2 secs... Amaranth Deck Building Tool : VTES NZ : VTES ANZ Facebook

you're probably right in that the text box texture could probably faded more, and you're not wrong about clarity, but without that little faded bit at the top of the card, having the text overlap a very plain bar seems... not okay to me. A concern I have is that much of your text boxes are going to be eaten up by your discipline icons, and i'm wondering if smaller icons and differently justified text aren't an easy solution to that. thanks for getting me fired up about design again!

Here you go: Amaranth Deck Building Tool : VTES NZ : VTES ANZ Facebook

neat. Hit me up on Facebook if you're in the VTES WORLD group, Ke. I just posted a link to this thread.

> self wrote: > neat. Hit me up on Facebook if you're in the VTES WORLD group, Ke. I just posted a link to this thread. > Don't do Facebook. Thanks though. Amaranth Deck Building Tool : VTES NZ : VTES ANZ Facebook

> self wrote: > A concern I have is that much of your text boxes are going to be eaten up by your discipline icons, and i'm wondering if smaller icons and differently justified text aren't an easy solution to that. > Force of Personality is one of the exceptions — if it works for this it will work for everything else. I think it works and is clearer than the original card. Even so, the icons probably are not actually necessary as you can only strike during combat and sup has the "Only usable as the action is announced." clause... This means behaviour consistent with Elemental Stoicism can be achieved (has the bold +1 Stealth Action): Amaranth Deck Building Tool : VTES NZ : VTES ANZ Facebook

Damn, these designs are awesome! One small comment is that I think cards with multiple different types of effects (as in cards that are played either as an X card or as a Y card) should either retain the card type symbols after the effect (so that it's clear when each effect can be played), or that the text boxes become tinted to reflect the type of effect that it is. So red-ish text box for combat, etc. Again, awesome work, I'm very very excited to see what comes of this! Check out my VTES blog: Gaming with BS I also host a google doc which separates the TWDA into clans . That means I track how often clans win, which crypt groups get used, and how many people attend events. You can access all of that info here:

Ke, I saw your simplification and noticed something that bothered me. The 'blend colour-to-colour' for the dual-type cards. I figured, if we're going for super-bold direct graphical information, then why do that? Why not make it a dual-bar? Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418

> Juggernaut1981 wrote: > I figured, if we're going for super-bold direct graphical information, then why do that? Why not make it a dual-bar? > Pretty good idea, although it hinders the text. How about this: Although perhaps we're over complicating things that are the exception? Amaranth Deck Building Tool : VTES NZ : VTES ANZ Facebook

Colouring the Disciplines is a bridge too far in my mind. But the double-bar seems to convey the information quickly. I'm not a huge fan of the text, mostly because I lean to clear graphical information over text for 'symbol matching' use. The other thought is to always use the same order (alphabetical) so you would have: Action, Combat, Modifier, Reaction in order left to right. And maybe add the 'card type logo' to the boxes. EDIT: Including another mockup Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418

> Juggernaut1981 wrote: > I'm not a huge fan of the text, mostly because I lean to clear graphical information over text for 'symbol matching' use. > With the card type icons there are no symbols to match — unlike discipline and clan icons that are matched to other cards. We had a new player a couple of weeks ago and the main thing he struggled with was card type — it's a common issue. Having it in plain text means there isn't another set of icons to learn (some are slightly different, action vs action modifier wtf). Players now only need to focus on matching the discipline icons to vampires. Amaranth Deck Building Tool : VTES NZ : VTES ANZ Facebook

> Juggernaut1981 wrote: > Colouring the Disciplines is a bridge too far in my mind. But the double-bar seems to convey the information quickly. > Yes, I agree. I think that they would be better plain black. All in all I don't think it's worth investing too much time in such corner case cards. The dual colour bar is probably the best solution so far. Amaranth Deck Building Tool : VTES NZ : VTES ANZ Facebook

> With the card type icons there are no symbols to match — unlike discipline and clan icons that are matched to other cards. > > We had a new player a couple of weeks ago and the main thing he struggled with was card type — it's a common issue. Having it in plain text means there isn't another set of icons to learn (some are slightly different, action vs action modifier wtf). Players now only need to focus on matching the discipline icons to vampires. > I agree with this statement - was trying to teach someone to play and they had a hard time remembering which icon meant what type of card. To say - you can only play 'combat' cards now and see the words would be super easy to explain to people.

Actually, right there. I didn't like the Discipline Colouring, so I was looking for a way around that. And colour is a great way to signify card type simply and quickly. Action = Blue Combat = Red Modifier = Dull gold Political = Orange-Gold Master = Green Reaction = Dark Blue Event = Dark Red So... with that in mind: Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418

> Ke. wrote: > > > Lönkka wrote: > > I also think that the sidebars could be made look prettier and cooler (with some subtle designs and such). > > > I agree, they could be improved — however I think it's very important that they are not too busy and too distracting. > The word I used was "subtle"... Finnish Politics!

> Ke. wrote: > Here you go: > While I like the card type symbols, once you get over the lack of them (replaced by text and colored sidebar) the new design is actually probably better. That being said I do think that the opaque sidebar colors look BUTT UGLY and need some subtle shading/texture and such. Then again Self-biased's example here is way too in your face / loud. Ke's text bars are better proportioned and look way neater, but I do like the idea of very opaque color on the background signifying the card type on Self-biased's version. Although these probably could be made slightly even more transparent. Also how the text is laid out works better in Ke's version (the larger discipline symbols work better too). Clarifying requirements in the black field /=text) is a good idea so here I'm again with Ke. Card name placement works better on Self-biased's version. WHile I'm all for big pics, I do think that Ke's version is looks crisper and does better job of presenting the game info (=text) than Self-biased's. Even if that means that the pic is smaller 8perhaps around the size it actually currently is?) Finnish Politics!

> Juggernaut1981 wrote: > Ke, > I saw your simplification and noticed something that bothered me. The 'blend colour-to-colour' for the dual-type cards. I figured, if we're going for super-bold direct graphical information, then why do that? Why not make it a dual-bar? > For the love of Cain -NOOOOOOOOOOO! The blending actually looks better than Ke's plain opaque colors. Juggs, your example looks just plain ol' horrendous. (sorry for the bluntness, mate!). Also. continuing being blunt, adding the colored stripes to the sides of the textboxes also looks so very ugly and confusing. Self-biased already gave better solution to this, which is the very transparent background color of the text boxes. But like just said in my previous reply, actually the colored sidebar with the card type text works better than the old style symbols. I also like Ke's reasoning of removing the card type symbols to lessen the number of confusing symbols (especially for the newbies who must already struggle enough with all the discipline and clan symbols). Besides, why keep redundant info on the card which already are starved for space when you can actually convey the same info in more elegantly? Finnish Politics!

Generally I like this new design becouse of clear information it gives but at the same time it lefts not enough space for the illustration and the sidebar is just bleee To make more room for pictures I would move artist's name to the side (like in Selfbiased's version), remove text about cost (it's doubling the same information that iconography gives and iconography is clear in this case) and make discipline symbols a little smaller (something between Ke's and Selfbiased's versions). I like the idea of dropping cards' types icons. The were never good and even experienced players misread them from time to time.

From what I've seen: between the plain color bar and the textured bar proposed by self biaised, I tend to prefer the former. Ideally, it should be a mix between the too (as I said in my article: "textures should be simplified") I agree we can get rid of the type icon in the side bar, but not in the textboxes, to remove any ambiguity (see Gift of Sleep) The name should start from the left border of the picture. The photos takent proves it: you see only a small portion of the card, you need to have a identifying clue with the start of the name) The artist name should not be on the right border (self biaised version): it ruins the full art beauty Dual type cards should have a gradient, not a brutal frontier (see s7.postimg.org/wlzrxkkgb/taintedduals.png vs s17.postimg.org/r4ip7a1nz/originalduals.png) Some card effects have two types (Gift of Sleep: [obe] [ACTION MODIFIER][REACTION] Only usable when this vampire is about to enter combat with an ally. Tap that ally and end the action. If this vampire is blocking, do not tap him or her.) So distinctive background color to replace the card type is not necessarily a good idea, unless you want the card to look like some psychedelic outfit Textboxes look great in plain white, even though I'd make them slightly transparent Ke's (OP) choice of fonts looks better than self biaised (for card type especially) Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

> Lönkka wrote: > Also. continuing being blunt, adding the colored stripes to the sides of the textboxes also looks so very ugly and confusing. Self-biased already gave better solution to this, which is the very transparent background color of the text boxes. > Actually I found the partially transparent boxes rather distracting, the "black/white" box system I found interesting and clear. Actually the point of those 'colour blocks' is to identify the 'usage'. If you're going to colour code the card, then as a logical extension, you 'tag' the usages with the colour (i.e. card text that is Combat text is red). There needs to be a way on the text box to tell just what kind of 'use' this card has for cards which have multiple card types. As Ankha mentions in #6, some can have two forms at the one level and hence you need to be able to show that as well quickly; he suggests the old icons but that doesn't remove the symbol problem Ke was trying to address and hence a colour block of some kind on the edge of the 'text block' seems an easy way to put that information there. > Lönkka wrote: > But like just said in my previous reply, actually the colored sidebar with the card type text works better than the old style symbols. I also like Ke's reasoning of removing the card type symbols to lessen the number of confusing symbols (especially for the newbies who must already struggle enough with all the discipline and clan symbols). Besides, why keep redundant info on the card which already are starved for space when you can actually convey the same info in more elegantly? > Mostly it was around 'riffing on themes'. Combine them, play with them, visualise them and see which ones work better. Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418

> Juggernaut1981 wrote: > Actually, right there. I didn't like the Discipline Colouring, so I was looking for a way around that. And colour is a great way to signify card type simply and quickly. > Action = Blue > Combat = Red > Modifier = Dull gold > Political = Orange-Gold > Master = Green > Reaction = Dark Blue > Event = Dark Red > Leaving aside the aesthetics, having a key game concept trigger off colour alone is a bad idea, unless you want to cause problems for colour-blind people. Having colour as a short-cut for people with normal colour vision is fine, when it's backed up by something else - a distinct shape, literal text, font or font decoration (italics, underline, bold etc.), some sort of patterning etc. Having it as the only means of telling things apart is a right royal pain, especially when: a) for theme/aesthetic reasons, you're probably avoiding certain colours and shades (e.g. Reflex is unlikely to be hot pink, Politics is unlikely to be bright-as-the-sun yellow), so you have a more limited colour palette with more scope for clashes, and b) you're using individual people's printers, and my shoddy old printer at home that gets used once a year to print out a job application and is a bit gunked up is probably not hitting the same crisp shades as the colour laser print you're using at work etc.

> Ke. wrote: > > > Damnans wrote: > > How would a political action such as Veles' Hunt look in this new design? I am mostly concerned about the amount of redundant information that can be given in the side bar. > > > Here's a complicated political action card: > > Looks clean and simple — even with more information. > The "1 vote" text is missing. Where would you place it? V:EKN Website Coordinator

> jamesatzephyr wrote: > Leaving aside the aesthetics, having a key game concept trigger off colour alone is a bad idea, unless you want to cause problems for colour-blind people. > That is usually a function of hue-intensity and can be easily determined as being a problem by setting the colours desaturated for normally sighted people and where tones are similar, one of them is changed. > jamesatzephyr wrote: > Having colour as a short-cut for people with normal colour vision is fine, when it's backed up by something else - a distinct shape, literal text, font or font decoration (italics, underline, bold etc.), some sort of patterning etc. Having it as the only means of telling things apart is a right royal pain, especially when: > > a) for theme/aesthetic reasons, you're probably avoiding certain colours and shades (e.g. Reflex is unlikely to be hot pink, Politics is unlikely to be bright-as-the-sun yellow), so you have a more limited colour palette with more scope for clashes, and > Sure, colour palette may have issues included, but again, I suspect you could easily find the required 9 or 10 colours that do not clash, are signficantly different for full sighted and the standard forms of colour blindness (the usually being partial red-green but others do appear). > jamesatzephyr wrote: > b) you're using individual people's printers, and my shoddy old printer at home that gets used once a year to print out a job application and is a bit gunked up is probably not hitting the same crisp shades as the colour laser print you're using at work etc. > That problem exists as it is with people using poor quality printers. Very little one can do with that other than recommend you go to 'serious printers' when you want to print them; I usually recommend people print in black and white for deck testing and colour when they plan to use them for tournament-style times. Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418

> Juggernaut1981 wrote: > > > jamesatzephyr wrote: > > b) you're using individual people's printers, and my shoddy old printer at home that gets used once a year to print out a job application and is a bit gunked up is probably not hitting the same crisp shades as the colour laser print you're using at work etc. > > > That problem exists as it is with people using poor quality printers. Very little one can do with that other than recommend you go to 'serious printers' when you want to print them; I usually recommend people print in black and white for deck testing and colour when they plan to use them for tournament-style times. > Since it will now apparently require people use commercial quality printers because you've forced a key game mechanic to rely on colour differences, could you draft the section of the V:EKN tournament rules that explains what a legal card now is? Being able to read a card is pretty easy to determine, being able to tell if my printer is providing an unintentionally washed-out form of blue because I'm low on ink, not so much. Which is why: > Juggernaut1981 wrote: > That is usually a function of hue-intensity and can be easily determined as being a problem by setting the colours desaturated for normally sighted people and where tones are similar, one of them is changed. > ...runs into problems extremely quickly. My green comes out unintentionaly desaturated because my printer is somewhat rubbish (for whatever reason), and things go downhill very quickly. Bottom line: if you think putting hard colour requirements into the game like this is trivially surmountable, you are very, very wrong, in every conceivable way. There's a reason why accessibility experts plead with programmers and designers to let people change things, or not rely on colour in the first place, and it's not that accessibility experts are too busy to just tell those programmers the secret palette combination that will solve the problem. My monitor is not your monitor, my handheld is not your handheld, my eyes are not your eyes. Give it up.

> jamesatzephyr wrote: > There's a reason why accessibility experts plead with programmers and designers to let people change things, or not rely on colour in the first place, and it's not that accessibility experts are too busy to just tell those programmers the secret palette combination that will solve the problem. > There's also the colour blind. Colours should only serve as an aid, a bonus — never a requirement (hence the card type specially named). Amaranth Deck Building Tool : VTES NZ : VTES ANZ Facebook

> Damnans wrote: > The "1 vote" text is missing. Where would you place it? > It would easily fit in the black area — that comfortably supports 2 lines. Amaranth Deck Building Tool : VTES NZ : VTES ANZ Facebook

OK, based on peoples feedback. Here's the final (or near enough) versions. The size of title has been increased and re-positioned. The side bar has been given character without being too in your face — it's also been given a worn timely feel in keeping with the general game vibe. The texture is also partial derived from the main image — although it's very subtle. Amaranth Deck Building Tool : VTES NZ : VTES ANZ Facebook

The new card design looks great. Thanks for doing this. Just my two cents: The combat and modifier symbols on the Force of Personality look somewhat out of place. If we choose to get rid of the symbols, I think it has to be consistent. We don't want to have somebody not familiar with the symbols to pull out a reference card if we can avoid it. Didn't like the multicolor idea either. Maybe just a simple "C: ...." "M:..." can solve this. I think the Clan symbol for a requirement should move up to the black header box. This will match the blood, pool and 'only usable...' prerequisite character of that area. That would also work with other minion and master cards. Also, I prefer the previous colored bar with no pattern. Less symbols and less shade/pattern is the way to go these days, but that might just be me. Thanks again. Marcus

> Ke. wrote: > OK, based on peoples feedback. Here's the final (or near enough) versions. > > The size of title has been increased and re-positioned. The side bar has been given character without being too in your face — it's also been given a worn timely feel in keeping with the general game vibe. The texture is also partial derived from the main image — although it's very subtle. > Is really need to use icon and text to represent card cost? I think only icon is enough, And the position of the icon can be changed to the right side in below corner like crypt cards. Also you can text use between 10 to 20% os transparency in card tybe bar to show more of artwork. Fernando Cesar - Sydnelson LackeyCCG and OCTGN VtES Mantainer Prince of Rio de Janeiro Powerbase Rio de Janeiro

> Sydnelson wrote: > Is really need to use icon and text to represent card cost? I think only icon is enough > It increases clarity, which is good for for new players. It also deals with the ackward black void when there is a cost and no requirements. > Sydnelson wrote: > Also you can text use between 10 to 20% os transparency in card tybe bar to show more of artwork. > There is nothing under the bar — the layout is designed to work with the proportions of the current artwork. It would be unwise to unnecessarily cover parts of the art. Also, the bar should be as clear as possible. Amaranth Deck Building Tool : VTES NZ : VTES ANZ Facebook

> MarcusVitel wrote: > Also, I prefer the previous colored bar with no pattern. Less symbols and less shade/pattern is the way to go these days, but that might just be me. > Yeah, I'm partial to the non textured version also. Nice and clean. Less dated. However, once printed the texture is hardly noticeable so it does no real real harm — such a clean look might be too step away from the norm much for some players. Here is the comparison: Amaranth Deck Building Tool : VTES NZ : VTES ANZ Facebook

I love these, but would ask to remove the bar with the card cost text and zoom out a bit to show more of the artwork. You could just have the card cost text a bit further down, above the discipline text. Great work though!

I have never been one that cares about flavor text. But many people do. It is still used on most (all?) TCG and LCG. With this new lay-out it is not an option, I think? What about draft text? Is that possible? This is a great thread! David Tatu V:EKN Scribe

Thanks to all the contributors in this thread, there's been a lot of work put into these redesigns! Ke's latest mock ups look great to me, and his comment about the texture once printed is spot on. I like both the clean and textured versions. I did like Juggernaut1981's suggestions with the split coloured bars and then Ke's addition of text split onto the corresponding coloured bar. They looked good, until I saw Ke's latest mock up with the improved textured gradient, it's spot on, I love it. I feel the main text box should be solid while with black text, as in Ke's designs. Let's face it, this game is played mainly by people 35 years and older. Most of us will be having trouble with our eyes at some stage, so lets make it easier on ourselves and any new players by making it easy to read the card text. While we're talking about card text, I'm for the removal of all flavour text. I never read them, and even if I did, I'd read it once and that would be it. Certainly not worth having on the card at the expense of so much card real estate. My 2 cents B) I hope Paradox is checking out this thread! townsvillevtes.blogspot.com.au/ Prince of Townsville, Australia

I really like the second generation far, far more than the previous one, so kudos to you, Ke. The full bar with the card name hanging over is growing on me, which i was previously against. The textures in the bar add so much for me, and i'd be in favor of making them much 'busier' as you'd probably put it. Back when I first started playing Legend of the Five Rings, the lavish card frames really drew me in. when they went to their second generation layout, it seemed super bland to me in comparison. I'm a sucker for the flashy shit, and we can go back and forth on this but we'll probably never really come to some kind of compromise. But that's okay; we can like different things. also, the "too busy" textures I used were the ones we already have. The gradient in the bar of the dual needs to be waaaay sharper. right now it's too wide, and the transition from one texture and color is too gradual. narrow that sucker up to like... a half inch at most. I like the slight drop shadow of the side bar. I'm probably in the minority, but I'd advocate to keep the icons and not have it written out if we can't do both. having just the words "Modifier/Combat" on the side and then the icons in the actual text box is inconsistent and can possibly lead to confusion. I'd like to see something like "Modifier / Combat " used for maximum clarity. Having taught the game recently to a few people, using action modifiers successfully seemed to be an issue. All too often the player would see "+1 Stealth" on the card and try to throw it for stealth when it was, in fact, a Govern The Unaligned. Having both the symbol and the words on the side of the card and the symbol in the text box increases clarity, but also increases clutter. I'd also be very in favor of a faint texture in the text box that matches the cardtype. For my take on "Force of Personality" I used 40% opacity, when 20-25% would probably be better. It's a conundrum for sure. I'd be in favor of ditching the "Costs 1 blood/pool" in the black portion of the box. Symbols and Icons are generally easy to recognize, and we can just shrink down the size of the black portion of the box. Speaking of which, was it a part of your intended design to have variable sized text boxes? I'm not against it, but it can make for some preposterously strange goings on with the artwork and plotting out optimum sizes. I really really like the black box and white text for qualifying text, and would suggest that keywords go there too. the only thing that gets weird is when only one level has qualifying text. While it certainly is exceptionally clear, I'm not a fan of how much space the discipline Icon takes up in the text box. That's prime real estate, and it feels like we're crunching things down unnecessarily. I like Ankha's suggestion of [Discipline][Cardtype] in the first line of text of the box. Cardtype can be optional in single type cards. It would be... not good to try to infer when a card can be played. I'm really looking forward to seeing what you do with Allies and Retainers. Will their sidebar read "Recruit" and "Employ?" will you use icons to denote Life, Strength, and Bleed? I'm also looking forward to seeing a crypt card out of you. Overall, I really like the design, but I don't want to see it get oversimplified and made bland and homogeneous.

> david.tatu wrote: > I have never been one that cares about flavor text. But many people do. It is still used on most (all?) TCG and LCG. > I deliberately killed it — part of the information optimisation process. It would be possible to add it to the most basic of cards; and it wouldn't surprise me if this was part of it's origin — to fill space on sparse cards... Amaranth Deck Building Tool : VTES NZ : VTES ANZ Facebook

> self wrote: > do both. having just the words "Modifier/Combat" on the side and then the icons in the actual text box is inconsistent and can possibly lead to confusion. I'd like to see something like > You're comparing the old versions; the newer ones are much more consistent: There will always be exceptions — I think having the ability to expand when necessary (compared to unreadable text) is really useful. But it will always be the exception. The position and scale of the image is optimised for the most common size (the cards above). Amaranth Deck Building Tool : VTES NZ : VTES ANZ Facebook

> Ke. wrote: > > > self wrote: > > do both. having just the words "Modifier/Combat" on the side and then the icons in the actual text box is inconsistent and can possibly lead to confusion. I'd like to see something like > > > You're comparing the old versions; the newer ones are much more consistent: > > There will always be exceptions — I think having the ability to expand when necessary (compared to unreadable text) is really useful. But it will always be the exception. The position and scale of the image is optimised for the most common size (the cards above). > Even with the latest versions, it sill feels kinda weird to have cards with or without type icons. So I was thinking, do we still need cards type icons ? What if we drop all of them and use word instead ? (Just as you did on the left bar.) Could you try to make a version of Force of Personnality with capital name instead of icons in the text box ? Now here are some other impressions I got about theses cards : - Though it's not the most important thing right now, we should also consider some readjustment in the card text. For exemple, I think that the "only 1 perd round" part of IG should go in the black box. So does "blood hunt" for Vele's Hunt as it's clearly a keyword. - Personnaly, I don't like the fact that the cost appears both in icon and in text. Maybe we can reduce the black box when there is nothing in it. In any case, I think you did a great job ! I can't wait to see how you will deal with some other tricky cards (such as Shambling or Camarilla Vitae Slave). EDIT : also, since the left bar layout is important, what about "Burn Option" ?

Love where this is going. My suggestions: - Smaller icons (maximise text areas) - Smaller margins (maximise text areas) - Smaller card type text, perhaps align more left. - No duplication (blood icon + extra cost text) I like the design (margins, icon size etc), but feel some design sacrifices must be made for function. Especially anarch cards eat a lot of space with box separations. The cost icon overlapping the black text area works when there's text, but starts looking inconsistent when there's no text. Perhaps put the cost aside the card type text just under the title. = : Card title | : Card Type Text X : Cost | ======= | X | X | -1 Strength

> Ke. wrote: > > > david.tatu wrote: > > I have never been one that cares about flavor text. But many people do. It is still used on most (all?) TCG and LCG. > > > I deliberately killed it — part of the information optimisation process. > > It would be possible to add it to the most basic of cards; and it wouldn't surprise me if this was part of it's origin — to fill space on sparse cards... > I'm with Ke here, while sort of nice, these can't be hindering clarity. So should only be used in cards that have very little text. Finnish Politics!

was that really a problem though? Were people somehow mistaking flavor text for game text? The very notion strains credulity.

> Ke. wrote: > > > self wrote: > > do both. having just the words "Modifier/Combat" on the side and then the icons in the actual text box is inconsistent and can possibly lead to confusion. I'd like to see something like > > > You're comparing the old versions; the newer ones are much more consistent: > > [...]. > I am sorry - I can't see here anything that gets rid of the inconsistency. The point is, you have only text on the left bar to denote the card type(s), and Force of Personality shows only Symbols in the text box to denote which effect corresponds to which cardtype. For new players there is no way to learn the symbols, as they are only on few, complicated cards, and never explained. Apart from that I really like what you did there - although a part of my heart is crying at loosing the flavor texts. I love reading those when I have to wait until someone makes a decision, even though I probably read most of them already hundreds of times. Prince of Bonn, Germany

> Ke. wrote: > I love that you've moved the 'blend' up on Force of Personality so it can be seen. That achieves the 'double bar' solution. But it introduces a contradiction: if the card action symbols are problematic, then shifting the problem on the card to the text box won't remove the problem. All that has happened is it migrated on some card types. It seems that some kind of colour-tag is required to solve the problem. If you take the symbol away, you need the 'new symbol' or another signifier. Maybe even as simple as "Combat" or "Modifier" or "Action" as a bold line as the top row of the text box. Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418

> Juggernaut1981 wrote: > > > Ke. wrote: > > Maybe even as simple as "Combat" or "Modifier" or "Action" as a bold line as the top row of the text box. > > > The sample cards do have the card type written in the colored sidebar. > Since it is the sidebar it is not eating up any prime space anywhere else! > > If you can't locate it from the sidebar, I dare say that you are not able to locate it even if it was in the center of the picture with letters as big as a house... > Finnish Politics!

> self wrote: > was that really a problem though? Were people somehow mistaking flavor text for game text? The very notion strains credulity. > No that kind of clarity, but if the flavor text eats up so much space that you have to compromise with the actual game text/symbols, then in such cards no flavor text is needed. I so dearly liked the original flavor texts for all those great bands which were later removed since, erm, no one had thought to ask permission for them in the first place... The subsequent flavor texts have all more or less been in the meh -catagory. Finnish Politics!

> Lönkka wrote: > > > Juggernaut1981 wrote: > > > > > Ke. wrote: > > > Maybe even as simple as "Combat" or "Modifier" or "Action" as a bold line as the top row of the text box. > > > > > > > > The sample cards do have the card type written in the colored sidebar. > > Since it is the sidebar it is not eating up any prime space anywhere else! > > > > If you can't locate it from the sidebar, I dare say that you are not able to locate it even if it was in the center of the picture with letters as big as a house... > > Huh? I just meant, if you're getting rid of the symbol from the Sidebar, why are you putting it into the "text"? If you want it to replace it with words, do that everywhere. If you want to replace it with colours, do that everywhere. If you want to replace it with (insert thing here) then do that everywhere. Force of Personality and stuff like Swallowed by the Night will have the same problem. Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418

as had been mentioned before: solely relying on colors to differentiate cardtypes probably isn't the best idea, because color blindness is a thing. Using a color strip to identify cardtypes is effectively changing from a symbol that's been in use for the last twenty-odd years to a new one. This is precisely why I am advocating that the icons stay on the bar with the text reminder, and have a very transparent texture matching the cardtypes in the text box. For what it's worth, I have a player in my group who has a significant visual impairment and the icons help him identify cards. Edit: i think we're actually arguing the same point, Juggernaut.

Idea, which bothers me for a some time, cost for action cards and other cards. Timing of cost (when played / when action resolves) must be somehow represented. NC Russia

> elotar wrote: > Idea, which bothers me for a some time, cost for action cards and other cards. > > Timing of cost (when played / when action resolves) must be somehow represented. > care to give me a detailed walk-through as to your logic, and why this is a pressing design need?

> self wrote: > as had been mentioned before: solely relying on colors to differentiate cardtypes probably isn't the best idea, because color blindness is a thing. Using a color strip to identify cardtypes is effectively changing from a symbol that's been in use for the last twenty-odd years to a new one. This is precisely why I am advocating that the icons stay on the bar with the text reminder, and have a very transparent texture matching the cardtypes in the text box. > > For what it's worth, I have a player in my group who has a significant visual impairment and the icons help him identify cards. > > Edit: i think we're actually arguing the same point, Juggernaut. > I don't think we are. You are saying "If we swap colour strips for icons, haven't we made new icons?" What I am saying is: "When you have a multi-type card, how are you going to mark the types?" My point about the icons is: If the icons are a problem of understanding, then we need a consistent replacement for the icons. I am fine with new icons, I'm fine with colour blocks, I'm fine with writing "Combat" in bold on its own line in the usage. As 'added text' since the text apparently isn't a problem and in terrible non-picture format. Force of Personality | | (Artwork space) | (1 blood) Costs 1 blood | | Combat | Strike: Combat ends. | | Modifier Only usable before... etc, etc, | Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418

> Juggernaut1981 wrote: > My point about the icons is: If the icons are a problem of understanding, then we need a consistent replacement for the icons. I am fine with new icons, I'm fine with colour blocks, I'm fine with writing "Combat" in bold on its own line in the > Yes, I tried having "Combat: Effect text" etc on Force of Personality and it was quite effective. I think it's better than showing 2x icons (discipline + context) as new users won't be familiar with a icon as combat cards now only have COMBAT in text. Using text again here is consistent with the card type. The difficulty was laying it out in a manner that did not look shit. Amaranth Deck Building Tool : VTES NZ : VTES ANZ Facebook

> Ke. wrote: > > > Juggernaut1981 wrote: > > My point about the icons is: If the icons are a problem of understanding, then we need a consistent replacement for the icons. I am fine with new icons, I'm fine with colour blocks, I'm fine with writing "Combat" in bold on its own line in the > > > Yes, I tried having "Combat: Effect text" etc on Force of Personality and it was quite effective. I think it's better than showing 2x icons (discipline + context) as new users won't be familiar with a icon as combat cards now only have COMBAT in text. Using text again here is consistent with the card type. > > The difficulty was laying it out in a manner that did not look shit. > I see three pitfalls: the cardtext with or without the card type must look the same (no extra line) the cardtext with 2 card types or more must look good. the cardtext with 2 card types and 2 disciplines must look good (Quicksilver Contemplation) I'm slightly in favor of the icons as multi-disciplines, multi-type cards could be seen as "advanced" cards, and it looks neater. Unless I'm proven otherwise of course. It would be great to see Quicksilver Contemplation with [tem] [REACTION] on one line [aus][tem] [ACTION MODIFIER][REACTION] on two lines (a 2x2 square) [AUS][TEM] [ACTION MODIFIER] on one or two lines and the same thing with text. Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

> self wrote: > > > elotar wrote: > > Idea, which bothers me for a some time, cost for action cards and other cards. > > > > Timing of cost (when played / when action resolves) must be somehow represented. > > > care to give me a detailed walk-through as to your logic, and why this is a pressing design need? > We always encounter with the new players situation, when he tries to pay costs of actions asap, or is not paying cost for modifiers waiting for something. It's confusing, that this cost looks totally similar on the cards. And generally Actions and Action Mods are hard to distinguish for a new player. NC Russia

> Ke. wrote: > Yes, I tried having "Combat: Effect text" etc on Force of Personality and it was quite effective. I think it's better than showing 2x icons (discipline + context) as new users won't be familiar with a icon as combat cards now only have COMBAT in text. Using text again here is consistent with the card type. > > The difficulty was laying it out in a manner that did not look shit. > Maybe another way is to make it a 'loud' watermark or embossing. Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418

> Ankha wrote: > I see three pitfalls: the cardtext with or without the card type must look the same (no extra line) the cardtext with 2 card types or more must look good. the cardtext with 2 card types and 2 disciplines must look good (Quicksilver Contemplation) I'm slightly in favor of the icons as multi-disciplines, multi-type cards could be seen as "advanced" cards, and it looks neater. > > Unless I'm proven otherwise of course. It would be great to see Quicksilver Contemplation with [tem] [REACTION] on one line [aus][tem] [ACTION MODIFIER][REACTION] on two lines (a 2x2 square) [AUS][TEM] [ACTION MODIFIER] on one or two lines and the same thing with text. > Now that we don't need bold text to separate each discipline's level, we could use that to notify the card type. So, like Govern effect starts with "+1 stealth action", every text could start with the card type in bold. In a way, that would be consistent with the prerequisite. Force of Personnality effect would start like that : "Modifier. Only usable as the action is announced."

> Juggernaut1981 wrote: > > > Ke. wrote: > > Yes, I tried having "Combat: Effect text" etc on Force of Personality and it was quite effective. I think it's better than showing 2x icons (discipline + context) as new users won't be familiar with a icon as combat cards now only have COMBAT in text. Using text again here is consistent with the card type. > > > > The difficulty was laying it out in a manner that did not look shit. > > > Maybe another way is to make it a 'loud' watermark or embossing. > that looks like a step backward to me. I still like the icons best for this job.

> self wrote: > I still like the icons best for this job. > Then you are going nowhere. If the icon is at fault for confusion, using it anywhere leave the confusion. If you're going to remove it for 'simplicity' then remove it everywhere. Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418

You can use different borders of the text blocks to distinguish card types. Like solid for actions, puncture for modifiers, zigzag for combat ets. You can add word description of type ("action) into border frame or near it vertically or somehow. NC Russia

> Juggernaut1981 wrote: > > > self wrote: > > I still like the icons best for this job. > > > Then you are going nowhere. If the icon is at fault for confusion, using it anywhere leave the confusion. If you're going to remove it for 'simplicity' then remove it everywhere. > ease up, bud; you're coming off a little on the hostile side. If I came off as dismissive, I apologize. I was posting from my phone, and needed to be brief. For the record, I'm in favor of keeping the icons in both places, but maybe move it down to just above the cost? I might try to shoop something in a little while. The biggest thing thing that's hemmed up new players that i've seen is during stealth/intercept exchanges, they very often see +1 Stealth on an action card, and want to use that +1 Stealth. Perhaps a change in how included stealth is expressed on actions? wouldn't it be clearer if instead of +1 Stealth Action. on a card it was just 1 Stealth Action. and the + was removed?

so, here's a few offerings for an Ally [super clean] [transparent texture] [stupid icons; white text box] [stupid icons; textured text box] now, before i get any butthurt from the icons, I realized I didn't like them about a third of the way through putting them on the card. like... really really didn't like them. I had already put an hour of work into generating them, and sheer stubbornness prevailed. At the very least, we get to see what an awful idea it was. The bar texture was taken from the current Ally card, and I tried to make it a little more muted. The text box texture is over white at 18% opacity, and with an embossed effect. I tend to prefer the transparent texture in the text box as it creates a greater continuity and reinforces the cardtype. Using a texture in the text box can be a subtle reminder of cardtype in multi-type cards, which can become even more important if we are jettisoning the idea of Cardtype Icons from the game. also, a very, very, very specific gripe: Can someone on the design team explain why Staatet-ta has (Bane Mummy) appended into its title? it looks double plus ungood. i'm going to try my hand at something a little trickier next

> elotar wrote: > > > self wrote: > > > > > elotar wrote: > > > Idea, which bothers me for a some time, cost for action cards and other cards. > > > > > > Timing of cost (when played / when action resolves) must be somehow represented. > > > > > > > > care to give me a detailed walk-through as to your logic, and why this is a pressing design need? > > > We always encounter with the new players situation, when he tries to pay costs of actions asap, or is not paying cost for modifiers waiting for something. > > It's confusing, that this cost looks totally similar on the cards. > > And generally Actions and Action Mods are hard to distinguish for a new player. > Very true, but newbies are newbies and have a ton of stuff to learn. But saying "Pay the cost only if action succeeds" and "Pay the cost when playing the modifier" in every fricking card seems more than redundant. FTFR -Read the friendly rules (also when teaching the game, underline how these different cards work payment -vise) Finnish Politics!

> self wrote: > The biggest thing thing that's hemmed up new players that i've seen is during stealth/intercept exchanges, they very often see +1 Stealth on an action card, and want to use that +1 Stealth. > This. SO MUCH this. Like three quarters o more of the people I've demoed the game during the years have made this mistake. > self wrote: > Perhaps a change in how included stealth is expressed on actions? wouldn't it be clearer if instead of[/i] +1 Stealth Action. on a card it was just 1 Stealth Action. and the + was removed? > Dunno. Perhaps. Finnish Politics!

> self wrote: > so, here's a few offerings for an Ally > I was previously in the transparent texture camp, but comparing those two side by side here I got to say that the super clean is actually clearly superior. (But both look extremely nice; one is just way better and clearer.) And yes, those new symbols are way ugly! Finnish Politics!

> Lönkka wrote: > But saying "Pay the cost only if action succeeds" and "Pay the cost when playing the modifier" in every fricking card seems more than redundant. > > FTFR -Read the friendly rules (also when teaching the game, underline how these different cards work payment -vise) > oh Snips, a billionty times this.

*sharp intake of breath* okay. So, I've tackled Quicksilver Contemplation, and have six iterations to show. There are a few unfixed errors in some versions that I'm aware of: stuff like the spacing of text boxes, some of the text isn't perfectly justified, and a few others. you'll see them, the inconsistency is pretty noticeable. Textures are once again pulled from the current ones we already have. [one] [two] [three] [four] [five] [six] I've tried to incorporate most of the ideas brought up, and frankly, if there's a way to make this card look anything other than a cluttered mess, I'm apparently not up to the task. For what it's worth, I think that JUST the icons probably works best, but that's probably my pro-icon bias talking.

> Lönkka wrote: > I was previously in the transparent texture camp, but comparing those two side by side here I got to say that the super clean is actually clearly superior. (But both look extremely nice; one is just way better and clearer. > to be fair, the Ally background i used for the text box is way busier than I would otherwise have selected. It's a modification of the original background I already had ready, because I didn't want to go through the hassle of re-saturating the text box from the Ally Card and give it the same treatment.

Here's Quicksilver Contemplation: Now it's probably worth noting that the card was generated with 100% automation. Also, the above card includes a bleed of 2mm which will be required if printed and cut mechanically (this can be toggled on / off). At the start of the week I though to myself what's the point of redesigning the cards if nothing happens with the redesign — someone is going to need to apply the design all the cards. So I gave myself the challenge of doing so for all library cards before the week was out. I've written a program to generate redesigned cards for all 2192 Library cards and 1475 crypt cards based on the layouts I've posted. It's pretty much complete and the end results are really good. The only part outstanding is style bars / frames for the various crypt cards. There are 41 different clans. Creating 41 different side bars is going to require some help; if anyone is interested hit me up on skype: ketec2 — I will create a separate thread about crypt cards specifically. Amaranth Deck Building Tool : VTES NZ : VTES ANZ Facebook

Here are some more examples from the program: All 100% automated. Amaranth Deck Building Tool : VTES NZ : VTES ANZ Facebook

> Ke. wrote: > > There are 41 different clans. Creating 41 different side bars is going to require some help; if anyone is interested hit me up on skype: ketec2 — I will create a separate thread about crypt cards specifically. > ...oh, oh yes. I'm gaming right now, Good old masquerade tabletop. But yes. I would adore helping out.

so, I have a few nits i'd like to pick. Please, full black 'border, much like we already have. I'm also partial to the rounded corners. I would like a reduction of redundant information. For example, with "War Ghoul" I don't feel we really need the redundancy of "Requires a Tzimisce, costs 3 pool." I feel that space is better used for "Ghoul with 5 Life, 4 Strength, and 0 Bleed." because that would be Bolded on the the card. also, you don't write "requires a minion with [discipline]." in the box, but you do write "requires a ready [Clan]." it creates an inconsistency between your Ally and your Retainers. Just sayin'. I like the sidebars for Ally, Retainer, Equipment, and Master. Not a fan of the extra blood spatters on the Combat sidebar, and i'm not sure what the deal is with the lightning effect on the reaction card but it feels untidy for such a delightfully crisp layout. I'd like the action modifier to be the photo-negative of the action, as it is in the current scheme. failing that, a rich blue texture for action, and a golden yellow one for Modifier. If we're not going to use the current pool cost icon (Which I very much think that we should to try to keep consistency between iterations), could the number be made larger, and the icon smaller? the Icon currently looks too large to my eyes, when compared to the number inside it. Black box text might be best centered. I know it might make things weird, but with the left justification of the white box texts that's decidedly off center, it might work. As I've said, I really like the design overall! I think we'll work well together, as our penchants draw ourselves opposite the other. when we can find something we either equally like, or are mutually unhappy with, it'll be a sign of a good compromise.

> self wrote: > Please, full black 'border, much like we already have. I'm also partial to the rounded corners. > This merely denotes the bleed area (in printing terms) for professional print — it can effectively been ignored. Amaranth Deck Building Tool : VTES NZ : VTES ANZ Facebook

> Lönkka wrote: > But saying "Pay the cost only if action succeeds" and "Pay the cost when playing the modifier" in every fricking card seems more than redundant. > Obviously I'm not proposing writing it in words. I'm generally thinking of using different icons for the cost or different placement for the icon or something like it. NC Russia

I still don't like card type icons and "costs 1 blood" text. Life, strength and bleed of Allies need to be represented by icons and be not in the text box (at the right border, for example). NC Russia

> elotar wrote: > I still don't like card type icons and "costs 1 blood" text. > Same here. I would drop those icons everywhere and do the same to "costs 1 blood" text to show more of the card's art

> self wrote: > I would like a reduction of redundant information. For example, with "War Ghoul" I don't feel we really need the redundancy of "Requires a Tzimisce, costs 3 pool." I feel that space is better used for "Ghoul with 5 Life, 4 Strength, and 0 Bleed." because that would be Bolded on the the card. > Totally agree on this. I do like Ke's card name's more than the ones you used -larger font; more visibility. > If we're not going to use the current pool cost icon (Which I very much think that we should to try to keep consistency between iterations), could the number be made larger, and the icon smaller? the Icon currently looks too large to my eyes, when compared to the number inside it. > I do like your blood cost symbol more -more traditional one and less brutal. Finnish Politics!

> self wrote: > so, here's a few offerings for an Ally > > [super clean] > > [transparent texture] > > [stupid icons; white text box] > > [stupid icons; textured text box] > 1) I like the icons for the Ally Stats. They are generic enough, maybe use a "medical cross" for life. 2) In general I like the core format Ke has made 3) I like the white box/black box design. Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418

First mummy looks best to me. Hate those symbols for life/ strenght, etc. and white box looks much better than transparent. I would be tempted to move artist's name to the side or at the top of black box and then move all text sections a little down to show more of card's picture

> Lönkka wrote: > > > self wrote: > > I would like a reduction of redundant information. For example, with "War Ghoul" I don't feel we really need the redundancy of "Requires a Tzimisce, costs 3 pool." I feel that space is better used for "Ghoul with 5 Life, 4 Strength, and 0 Bleed." because that would be Bolded on the the card. > > > Totally agree on this. > Though I agree with you about cost, we gonna have troubles about requirement. When it's Clan or Discipline, it's easy because we just have to put the icon at the left of the card text. But what about Sect , title or trait ? I guess we could make icon for everything. I mean, sect icon already exist. We could make an icon that indicates that a vampire is titles ; something large like flight so we can indicate the title below. Same goes for trait. Icon for infernal, anarch, black hand, etc. But that would make a lot of extra icon. And what about cards that requires "negative trait" (such as Public Enemy for example) ? Also, there is capacity requirements, though it can be easily dealt with...

> Lönkka wrote: > > > self wrote: > > I would like a reduction of redundant information. For example, with "War Ghoul" I don't feel we really need the redundancy of "Requires a Tzimisce, costs 3 pool." I feel that space is better used for "Ghoul with 5 Life, 4 Strength, and 0 Bleed." because that would be Bolded on the the card. > > > Totally agree on this. > This is not practical for the same reasons that icons for life and bleed are not practical — these values can vary depending on discipline. The other factor is establishing consistent rules that apply to all 3700+ cards. Amaranth Deck Building Tool : VTES NZ : VTES ANZ Facebook

i'm not sure I follow you on this. Are you saying that it's not feasible because some cards don't have conditional text, or because with certain allies or retainers the actual values of life/strength/bleed can changed based on the discipline used to put them into play, like Raven Spy?

These look great. Is it possible to use the same sans-serif font for the pool cost?

> self wrote: > i'm not sure I follow you on this. Are you saying that it's not feasible because some cards don't have conditional text, or because with certain allies or retainers the actual values of life/strength/bleed can changed based on the discipline used to put them into play, like Raven Spy? > I'm saying that as you can't do the same for all allies; you shouldn't do so at all — it needs to be consistent. Take shambling hordes: Zombie with 3 life. 0 strength, 0 bleed. [nec] When Shambling Hordes enters play, remove an ally or vampire in your ash heap from the game or burn the Hordes. The Hordes gets +1 strength for each life counter it has. It can never gain life; any life it gains goes to the blood bank instead. The Hordes can enter combat with any minion as a action. [NEC] As above, with 4 life. Would they have a strength and life of 3 or 4 in terms of the icons? It's unnecessary complexity, best avoided and left to card text. Amaranth Deck Building Tool : VTES NZ : VTES ANZ Facebook

> Ke. wrote: > I'm saying that as you can't do the same for all allies; you shouldn't do so at all — it needs to be consistent. Take shambling hordes: > > Zombie with 3 life. 0 strength, 0 bleed. > [nec] When Shambling Hordes enters play, remove an ally or vampire in your ash heap from the game or burn the Hordes. The Hordes gets +1 strength for each life counter it has. It can never gain life; any life it gains goes to the blood bank instead. The Hordes can enter combat with any minion as a action. > [NEC] As above, with 4 life. > > Would they have a strength and life of 3 or 4 in terms of the icons? > > It's unnecessary complexity, best avoided and left to card text. > i am in no way suggesting that the atrocious icons I designed for life/str/bleed be used. I have more, but I'll wait until I'm not on mobile.

Regarding the 'requires x; costs x pool/blood/spankings or whatever' in the black text box. I genuinely am failing at understanding why this redundant information is so important. The requirement is in the text box, in icon form, be it clan or discipline. for the cards that require disciplines, there's a lack of "Requires X Discipline" in the box. why is a clan requirement different than a discipline requirement? I sincerely don't get it. is it to preserve something in that black box? there do exist library cards that won't have anything in that box... edit sorry for being vague-ish. hopefully people will be able to parse my thoughts.

> Ke. wrote: > Zombie with 3 life. 0 strength, 0 bleed. > > ... > > Would they have a strength and life of 3 or 4 in terms of the icons? > I think you know the answer to your question NC Russia

> self wrote: > i am in no way suggesting that the atrocious icons I designed for life/str/bleed be used. > I think for life we should use green circles like on imbued cards. For strength and bleed I'm suggesting not the icon with number, but one icon for 1, two for 2 ets (like colored mana cost on mtg cards). NC Russia

the current design aesthetic is trending away from icons. Consensus seems to be that they confuse new players.

> self wrote: > the current design aesthetic is trending away from icons. Consensus seems to be that they confuse new players. > Those icons would allow us to lighten the rules. With it, there is no need to "know" that every crypt cards has a base strength of 1 and can bleed for 1. This said, should we stay with icon for cap/life, bleed and strength or should we also include stealth and intercept ?

> Juggernaut1981 wrote: > 1) I like the icons for the Ally Stats. They are generic enough, maybe use a "medical cross" for life. > I think that the Red Cros sis trademarked. At least I seem to recall that here in Finland when one band used a similar symbol in their album's cover they had to recall the record and replace the cover. > alek wrote: > I would be tempted to move artist's name to the side or at the top of black box and then move all text sections a little down to show more of card's picture > Good point. Finnish Politics!

> 666Raziel wrote: > Those icons would allow us to lighten the rules. > With it, there is no need to "know" that every crypt cards has a base strength of 1 and can bleed for 1. > > This said, should we stay with icon for cap/life, bleed and strength or should we also include stealth and intercept ? > Icons aren't generally a problem for things that are used heavily - like, say, mana costs in Magic or Hearthstone, or capacity in V:TES. They can get weird and annoying, though. 1) When certain types of card don't see much play, icon-izing key features of those cards is a barrier to understanding them. 2) If you're trying to icon-ize something that's relatively static (i.e. only varies on minority of cards), that can also get annoying - particularly where the values of two different icons are commonly the same. Base bleed is 1, base strength is 1. I've just flipped out a mid-cap Brujah who has an orange diamond that says 2 and a purple octagon that says 1. So is that 2 bleed and 1 strength, or 1 bleed and 2 strength? All my other cards have an orange diamond saying 1 and a purple octagon saying 1, so that's not so much use for me as a newbie trying to remember which is which. 3) Clutter. If your aim is to stop people having to remember base values, you could be needing quite a few icons to cover things. Potentially a) strength, b) bleed, c) votes, d) inherent +stealth, e) inherent +intercept, as a start. That's potentially quite a lot of space to use on vampire who is just the default for every value. It also gets annoying when some minions will still have conditional bonuses. So Bobby the Brujah has +1 strength when in combat with a Sabbat vampire and Owen the Osebo has +1 intercept against non-Laibon vampires. Even with the icons, you're still going to need to write out the ability to text in quite a few situations.

> self wrote: > the current design aesthetic is trending away from icons. Consensus seems to be that they confuse new players. > Card type icons confuse new players, because they try to communicate complicated concepts by wrong means. Most other icons are fine. Test to understand, are the icons appropriate or not - try to switch one icon for other. If the card will still "work" (example - switch for ) then the icons are at their plaice, if not (switch for ) than you have to go different way. NC Russia

> jamesatzephyr wrote: > When certain types of card don't see much play, icon-izing key features of those cards is a barrier to understanding them. > Good point. Icons for burn option, advanced ets. have to go. NC Russia

> elotar wrote: > Test to understand, are the icons appropriate or not - try to switch one icon for other. If the card will still "work" (example - switch for ) then the icons are at their plaice, if not (switch for ) than you have to go different way. > It's very simple; icons that you need to match to other cards are the most important — so that's discipline (including flight and imbued creeds) and clan. The rest are effectively reminders. Amaranth Deck Building Tool : VTES NZ : VTES ANZ Facebook

> elotar wrote: > > > jamesatzephyr wrote: > > When certain types of card don't see much play, icon-izing key features of those cards is a barrier to understanding them. > > > Good point. Icons for burn option, advanced ets. have to go. > I care somewhat less about Burn Option as it's mostly only found on Bloodlines-y cards or similarly advanced sets, and I'd hope that somewhere between older players giving some guidance and a starter project etc., new players would mostly be heading for the 'mainstream' clans. Of course, it would be quite possible for something like that to turn up if a new player played a game of draft with some people. Also, given people seem to like the design where it says things like "Action Modifier / Reaction" down the left-hand side, eating into the space for icons there, I wouldn't be at all opposed to turning Burn Option into text. On Advanced, I don't care so much about the icon being there, but I do miss the Advanced text having been dropped from the textbox too, which I thought was helpful. I believe it's a conscious decision to save space - like some of the newer cards say "has +2 votes" rather than "2 additional votes" to save space. My personal preference is that if a text box on a vampire is so bursting with information that you can't fit in the word "Advanced", I'd prefer to slightly tweak the height of the text box up a bit for those very few special vampires. But I understand that other people's aesthetic preferences will not match mine - mine tend towards utilitarianism trumping beauty, if there absolutely has to be a clash. (I do, however, think that the icon for Advanced is a rubbish icon. That might be just me.)

> Lönkka wrote: > I think that the Red Cros sis trademarked. > At least I seem to recall that here in Finland when one band used a similar symbol in their album's cover they had to recall the record and replace the cover. > Oh I'm not talking a total ripoff of the Red Cross logo. But something as simple as making it in Green, Purple, with an outline around it. Because of the large number of cross logos around the world, there should be an easy enough modification to make it clear as something 'medical' but without infringing any specific copyright (i.e. The Red Cross' Red Cross) Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418

Here are latest; possibly final side bars for library cards: Note that the white text is merely to denote the card type here and will not be on the final card. Also; ignore the bleed around the edge of the card. Amaranth Deck Building Tool : VTES NZ : VTES ANZ Facebook

And for the odd dual functionality cards: There's only 73 of these cards out of 3700 and a good chunk of them will be covered by text like so: So I don't think it's worth investing too much time in worrying about these. Amaranth Deck Building Tool : VTES NZ : VTES ANZ Facebook

> Ke. wrote: > So I don't think it's worth investing too much time in worrying about these. > Could I enquire as to what Quicksilver Contemplation would look like in that style? It has four layers using six disciplines (aus, tem, aus+tem, AUS+TEM), which looks like it would leave very little space for card art, if you need four boxes and six discipline icons arranged vertically - like you've arranged the four dom+pre, DOM+PRE icons vertically. It also looks like the words "Action Modifier / Reaction" might get squashed on the left-hand side. I personally have no problems with tweaking the style to cope, but as the aesthetic aim seems to be towards large text and consistency, it looks like it might trouble that. So it would be interesting to see what compromises could be deployed, if required. You also get some cards with just endless card text, like Permanency. Does anyone happen to know what library card has the most words / characters on its text? (That's not a quiz question - I don't know the answer.)

> jamesatzephyr wrote: > Could I enquire as to what Quicksilver Contemplation would look like in that style? It has four layers using six disciplines (aus, tem, aus+tem, AUS+TEM), which looks like it would leave very little space for card art, if you need four boxes and six discipline icons arranged vertically - like you've arranged the four dom+pre, DOM+PRE icons vertically. > Quicksilver Contemplation was covered earlier in the thread: In terms of the longest amount of text, call the great beast is the winner: Amaranth Deck Building Tool : VTES NZ : VTES ANZ Facebook

> Juggernaut1981 wrote: > Because of the large number of cross logos around the world, there should be an easy enough modification to make it clear as something 'medical' but without infringing any specific copyright (i.e. The Red Cross' Red Cross) > Yeah, one could think that making card backs featuring five rings would be easy but , as you probably know, (US) Olympic Committee has nabbed copyright on all (?) variations of the five rings... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legend_of_the_Five_Rings "One legal issue for Legend of the Five Rings involved the use of a symbol that consisted of five interlocking rings, arranged in essentially a star pattern. This symbol was used for several years in the role-playing game and featured prominently on the backings of the cards in the collectible card game. The United States Olympic Committee sued Wizards of the Coast, who at that time owned Legend of the Five Rings, over the logo, because a special Act of the U.S. Congress[17] gave them the exclusive rights to any symbol consisting of five interlocking rings. The only way to completely resolve the issue was to quit using the symbol. For the role-playing game this meant very little, but for the collectible card game it meant that the backing of the cards had to be redesigned, which left players with a mix of cards that essentially resulted in marked decks. In an attempt to appease the players, Wizards released the first set with the different backs – Spirit Wars – bundled with opaque sleeves that would obscure the designs on the backs of the cards, allowing players to use any mix of cards in their decks." Finnish Politics!

> Lönkka wrote: > The United States Olympic Committee sued Wizards of the Coast, who at that time owned Legend of the Five Rings, over the logo, because a special Act of the U.S. Congress[17] gave them the exclusive rights to any symbol consisting of five interlocking rings. > There's the rub for why LotFR got screwed... Special Act of Congress. With the HUGE number of games using a cross of some sort (red, green, white, etc) as a Life marker, there would be a clear argument to make about it being an undefended copyright. Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418

> Juggernaut1981 wrote: > With the HUGE number of games using a cross of some sort (red, green, white, etc) as a Life marker, there would be a clear argument to make about it being an undefended copyright. > I think it is just because they are flying under the radar. Doesn't really matter though... Finnish Politics!

> Ke. wrote: > And for the odd dual functionality cards: > > .... > There's only 73 of these cards out of 3700 and a good chunk of them will be covered by text like so: > > .... > So I don't think it's worth investing too much time in worrying about these. > Overall, i think it's bit better to keep some existing themes conceptually (like leaving reactions whiteish). Also, some bullet marks on equipment would be great. Initially i was not really for cyan action modifier, but they should have similar color to action to keep things more intuitive. Sabbat.Black Hand Shakar: Lech loathe ranged weapons. Once each action, he may burn 1 blood to become Camarilla Prince of Krakow until the end of the action.

Here are some randomish side by side comparisons: Amaranth Deck Building Tool : VTES NZ : VTES ANZ Facebook

> Ke. wrote: > Here are some randomish side by side comparisons: > All are cool exept "costs 1 blood" phrase One more thing - paragraphs between the abilities and some wording rules. So for Carlton text field should look like: Strike: 1R once each combat strike: dodge +1 intercept when blocking vampires. During your discard phase, you may burn Carlton to burn a vampire who has committed diablerie since your last turn. Also I still think that Life, strength and bleed should be represented by icons NC Russia

The are some differences in Call The Wild Hunt text. The limitation is missing and the wording of the inferior level is slightly different.

Overall, borders are solid when it comes to Actions, Modifiers and Combat. Reaction doesn't look good. Ally looks so-so. The cost 1 blood is missing on call of the greater beast, but it's nice to see it dropped. Carlton should have: Unique mortal with 2 life, 0 strength, 0 bleed. Currently it's: Unique mortal with 2 life, 0 strength, 0 bleed. And it looks awful. Need to be fixed. Sabbat.Black Hand Shakar: Lech loathe ranged weapons. Once each action, he may burn 1 blood to become Camarilla Prince of Krakow until the end of the action.

> 666Raziel wrote: > The are some differences in Call The Wild Hunt text. > The limitation is missing and the wording of the inferior level is slightly different. > Could it be that the text used is from the rewording/ standardization project Pascal and Vincent have done? Finnish Politics!

> Lönkka wrote: > > > 666Raziel wrote: > > The are some differences in Call The Wild Hunt text. > > The limitation is missing and the wording of the inferior level is slightly different. > > > Could it be that the text used is from the rewording/ standardization project Pascal and Vincent have done? > The restriction is in the CSV file but doesn't appear for some reason in Ke's card. The inferior formulation has changed because of www.vekn.net/output-changes#R0174 : R0174 : X is immune to Y cards Replace with 'Y cards played on X have no effect on him or her'. Ex : X = vampire, Y = frenzy. 'Immune' is reserved to damage. Same for 'When another minion plays X, this vampire can burn 1 blood to be immune to the effects of that card.' => '... this vampire can burn 1 blood. If he or she does so, that card have no effect on him or her.' (Resilient Mind) (the reason is that "immune" had an unclear scope, especially concerning "bad"/"good" things) Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

> 666Raziel wrote: > The are some differences in Call The Wild Hunt text. > The limitation is missing and the wording of the inferior level is slightly different. > Thanks; there was a bug that skipped the initial requirement — that's been fixed. As Ankha mentioned; these are using the new card text. Amaranth Deck Building Tool : VTES NZ : VTES ANZ Facebook

> Lech wrote: > And it looks awful. Need to be fixed. > Agreed; I've added a rule which ensures a line break after "life." Amaranth Deck Building Tool : VTES NZ : VTES ANZ Facebook

> elotar wrote: > > > Ke. wrote: > > Here are some randomish side by side comparisons: > > > All are cool exept "costs 1 blood" phrase > Telepathic Misdirection has the "Costs 1 blood." sentence, but not Call the Great Beast... Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

> Ankha wrote: > Telepathic Misdirection has the "Costs 1 blood." sentence, but not Call the Great Beast... > The logic behind this was to ensure that the blood drop was not hanging by itself; it was grouped together with the effects by the black box — the cost as text was added if there were not any other requirements to fill the black void. This had two effects. 1. It allowed working with existing art easier, 2. It aided new players. I've since reworked the layout logic and removed the text. Amaranth Deck Building Tool : VTES NZ : VTES ANZ Facebook

> Lech wrote: > Overall, borders are solid when it comes to Actions, Modifiers and Combat. Reaction doesn't look good. Ally looks so-so. > I also agree with this. The purple sidebar for reactions looks weird to me. I'm also interested in why the pool cost icon is different to the original? In the new layout the skull icon is much smaller. townsvillevtes.blogspot.com.au/ Prince of Townsville, Australia

> DShrike wrote: > I'm also interested in why the pool cost icon is different to the original? In the new layout the skull icon is much smaller. > To be fair, pool costs looks familiar enough for me. It's not pixel perfect, but most people wouldn't even see the difference unlike aforementioned reaction borders. Sabbat.Black Hand Shakar: Lech loathe ranged weapons. Once each action, he may burn 1 blood to become Camarilla Prince of Krakow until the end of the action.

Here is my feedback on Ke's new library card layout: 1. Some library cards look like crypt cards (see Bum's Rush below). I think it is important that both main card types can be easily distinguished from each other. 2. The amount of text space you gain by overlapping the side bar with the text boxes is, in my opinion, wasted again with the use of the requirement symbols in a way that keeps the alignment of the text where it was with the official layout. So why not just adapting the size of requirement (and also card type) symbols to the size of the text font? Something along these lines: Fata Amria Strike: put this card on the opposing vampire; this cannot be dodged. The vampire with this card cannot play cards that require any superior Disciplines. He or she may burn this card during his or her untap phase instead of untapping. As above, but put on the acting vampire after a successful action directed at you (after resolving the action). 3. The use of different font sizes in the various text boxes does not look professional. 4. The area for the artwork should not be variable, because, in order to produce optimal results, artists need to know how their illustrations are going to look on the final card. 5. The fact that the artwork stretches from the top to the bottom of the card, and that it is partially covered by the two text boxes, makes it difficult for the artist to conceive an illustration that does not get harmed by that fact. Moving the text box to the lower end of the card and placing the artist's name elsewhere could be a suitable solution. V:EKN Website Coordinator

With some cards (e.g. Domain of Evernight, Breath of Thanatos) I have problems reading it's name. It feels too undistinguishable from the artwork. Prince of Bonn, Germany

> Damnans wrote: > 1. Some library cards look like crypt cards (see Bum's Rush below). I think it is important that both main card types can be easily distinguished from each other. > I've never heard of a player being confused by crypt and library cards — they occupy completely different physical spaces. If it turns out to be that difficult; all you need to do is look for the capacity icon. > Damnans wrote: > 2. The amount of text space you gain by overlapping the side bar with the text boxes is, in my opinion, wasted again with the use of the requirement symbols in a way that keeps the alignment of the text where it was with the official layout. > The amount of text area available is * far * greater than the current cards. Keeping the requirements icon separate as they are keeps the bar clear of clutter in the players hand (only showing the icons). It also keeps the requirements separate from content that also includes other icons, ie: > Damnans wrote: > So why not just adapting the size of requirement (and also card type) symbols to the size of the text font? Something along these lines. > I think it's important to maintain the separate boxes for separate effects as it leaves no doubt in the players mind about the distinction between the effects. Wrapping the text around the requirements icon would look rubbish and also lead to weird layout randomness. ie, a card where one effect wraps but the over doesn't: And that's not even factoring cards with 3 - 4 effects. If anything * lack * of content is the issue — filling to hit the artwork ratio. So there is no need to try and cram all the text and icons together. > Damnans wrote: > 3. The use of different font sizes in the various text boxes does not look professional. > There is only the possibility of 2 different font sizes in card text — and that only occurs when there is an opportunity to uniformly increase font size without increasing the size of the box / wrapping text. I would argue that in this scenario it's more important to increase readability than anything else: Does the above really look unprofessional? or is one box just easier to read? > Damnans wrote: > 4. The area for the artwork should not be variable, because, in order to produce optimal results, artists need to know how their illustrations are going to look on the final card. > This design was designed to work with current artwork and it does. The specifications for artwork size can remain the same. The layout will aim to match the current ratio where possible. Where is is unable due to lack of content or similar it uses the artwork as the source to fill the empty area. If absolutely required on cards where there is not enough content to hit the ration we could use flavour text to fill — however I think this is overkill. I think it's near impossible to rationally argue that the old cards above are easier to read and understand compared to the new. > Damnans wrote: > 5. The fact that the artwork stretches from the top to the bottom of the card, and that it is partially covered by the two text boxes, makes it difficult for the artist to conceive an illustration that does not get harmed by that fact. Moving the text box to the lower end of the card and placing the artist's name elsewhere could be a suitable solution. > This is incorrect. The artwork does not stretch from the top of the card to the bottom. The original artwork remains intact and is positioned in almost an identical fashion to the current cards, except it's scaled slightly to make use of the increased space (see above). In the situation where the layout is unable to make the textual content large enough without it looking crap; the layout will fill the extra content sourced from the original artwork. It's possible to have the layout aggressive pad and enlarge the text; however I would argue that it just looks crap: Here are a few more cards where the system expands on the artwork: Again we are never going to achieve 100% perfection without someone manually laying out and sourcing artwork for all 3700 cards — and that is unlikely to happen any time soon. That said; I have visually scanned all 3,700 cards and corrected any with obvious flaws. Correcting them is simple; becoming aware of the issue less so. We can crowd source a review of the cards and highlight any issues — more on that later. I would argue that this is a great improvement on the current randomness of the card set and the best we're going to have for some time to come. It brings consistency where there is none; it pulls the cards into the modern design era, vastly increases clarity and ease of understanding for new players. We're in the final round of bug testing for a tool that will allow all players to test the new design. From there more feedback would be appreciated... Amaranth Deck Building Tool : VTES NZ : VTES ANZ Facebook

> Ke. wrote: > This is incorrect. The artwork does not stretch from the top of the card to the bottom. The original artwork remains intact and is positioned in almost an identical fashion to the current cards, except it's scaled slightly to make use of the increased space (see above). > So, say I'm the Design Team(*) and I'm creating a brand new card, Powerbase: Wichita. We are not currently certain what the final text will be - and there are certainly examples in the past where a card changes quite a lot in terms of its text during playtest, for power reasons, to make it less fiddly, to make it more useful, or whatever. When I'm sourcing art - which can take a while, especially currently where most (all?) of it is being sourced through favours etc., so an artist might reasonably put well-paid work first - what parameters do I give the designer to tell them what shape/aspect ratio their picture should be? If it turns out that I need to put a line or two extra of text on the card, that might obliterate the neat little touches that the artist has put at the bottom of the shape. If I have to adjust the aspect ratio, it might push something off the side. Do I have to tell them to design to a certain minimum size, and that everything outside that might or might not appear? That doesn't seem like a fun way to be trying to source art for an expansion. (*) I'm not.

> jamesatzephyr wrote: > If I have to adjust the aspect ratio, it might push something off the side. Do I have to tell them to design to a certain minimum size, and that everything outside that might or might not appear? > I would inform them of potential run off and leave it up to them if they want to populate it or not. So in effect advise of the primary content area (which is a definite) and the run off which may be covered. This would typically be populated by a background colour or similar — so it is not particularly taxing and again optional. Filling this area with content sourced from the artwork it not the only option. Earlier versions used a mirrored effect as shown below — however the fill proved most effective and more subtle overall. It's probably worth pointing out that I had to search for cards affected by this. So without reviewing exactly what percentage of library cards are affected by this; it may be a lot of noise about not much. Also; as shown previously the logic can be adjusted to be more aggressive in terms of hitting a precise area for the artwork — so it may be a case of just tweaking this until it has a near 99% hit rate. For example Archon Investigation above could probably cope with more padding without issues. Amaranth Deck Building Tool : VTES NZ : VTES ANZ Facebook

Here is Archon Investigation after the revised logic has been applied: Amaranth Deck Building Tool : VTES NZ : VTES ANZ Facebook

> Ke. wrote: > > > jamesatzephyr wrote: > > If I have to adjust the aspect ratio, it might push something off the side. Do I have to tell them to design to a certain minimum size, and that everything outside that might or might not appear? > > > I would inform them of potential run off and leave it up to them if they want to populate it or not. So in effect advise of the primary content area (which is a definite) and the run off which may be covered. This would typically be populated by a background colour or similar — so it is not particularly taxing and again optional. > So, if the outcome of the exercise is that we get: - picture - variable-sized bland background colour - variable-sized text box Why not just have a uniform size textbox instead of a bland background colour? That seems far easier to discuss with potential artists, rather than "Please fill in this area with grey or green or something, but we might cover it up."

> jamesatzephyr wrote: > Why not just have a uniform size textbox instead of a bland background colour? That seems far easier to discuss with potential artists, rather than "Please fill in this area with grey or green or something, but we might cover it up." > As stated previously artists can work to the current specification without issue — the system can adapt accordingly. If they want to go a step further they can. In terms of why not just have a fixed size box for the text area; that's pretty much because it simply looks better with more artwork. On the left "fixed" sized text area, on the right dynamic; randomly picked cards: I know which I prefer. No artwork has been cropped in the above examples. Ascendence is probably the most extreme example — and it copes fine. Amaranth Deck Building Tool : VTES NZ : VTES ANZ Facebook

> Ke. wrote: > No artwork has been cropped in the above examples. > Uh, what do you call it when the trigger is covered up by the textbox on Saturday Night Special, making everything behind more than a little tricky to see behind the textbox? It is entirely possible to see the metal below the 'white V' at the front of the trigger on the artwork as printed, when you've covered it up in your left-hand example, for some reason. Nor is it at all clear why Blur's design is in any way enhanced by a metric shit-ton of black between the actual art and the textbox.

> jamesatzephyr wrote: > Uh, what do you call it when the trigger is covered up by the textbox on Saturday Night Special, making everything behind more than a little tricky to see behind the textbox? > This comes down to the quality of the scan. When it's a low quality scan; the system does the best it can. If you'd like to help out; you can provide a higher quality scan / photo of Saturday night special. I stand by my assertion that it does not crop the original artwork — see below when the original (newly sourced) scan is used as the background: As you can see the original border remains intact throughout the process. Again, like Ascendence this is one of the more extreme examples — deliberately sought. Based on an initial scan the number of cards like this is fairly low; you will be able to review all of them soon enough. Amaranth Deck Building Tool : VTES NZ : VTES ANZ Facebook

It'd be pretty easy to ask an artist to put some margins in around the subject so that it can be properly scaled in. I can see where people are getting confused, because it looks like a full bleed, but it isn't. The computer is filling in some empty space with parts of the picture. I think I'd rather see more picture than a big honkin text box.

> self wrote: > It'd be pretty easy to ask an artist to put some margins in around the subject so that it can be properly scaled in. > > I can see where people are getting confused, because it looks like a full bleed, but it isn't. The computer is filling in some empty space with parts of the picture. I think I'd rather see more picture than a big honkin text box. > Bigger picture is totally better. NC Russia

The new cards can now be reviewed / tested by everyone here: amaranth.vtes.co.nz/ (posting here for completeness) Amaranth Deck Building Tool : VTES NZ : VTES ANZ Facebook

> Ke. wrote: > > > Damnans wrote: > > 1. Some library cards look like crypt cards (see Bum's Rush below). I think it is important that both main card types can be easily distinguished from each other. > > > I've never heard of a player being confused by crypt and library cards — they occupy completely different physical spaces. > They're completely different card types with mechanics different enough that they warrant their own decks. I'm of the opinion that they deserve different layouts. I also believe that the current approach to artwork - portrait for crypt, landscape for library - is very effective for this purpose. > Ke. wrote: > > > Damnans wrote: > > 2. The amount of text space you gain by overlapping the side bar with the text boxes is, in my opinion, wasted again with the use of the requirement symbols in a way that keeps the alignment of the text where it was with the official layout. > > > The amount of text area available is * far * greater than the current cards. > Just because you freed up space doesn't mean you should waste it all over again. > Ke. wrote: > > > Damnans wrote: > > 3. The use of different font sizes in the various text boxes does not look professional. > > > There is only the possibility of 2 different font sizes in card text — and that only occurs when there is an opportunity to uniformly increase font size without increasing the size of the box / wrapping text. > I agree with Gines that it looks sloppy and unprofessional. It's an obvious fudging of the text box rules. As a card designer, I think the correct solution is to not design cards that use that much text in the first place. If the game were to come back in print, I'd push for eliminating cards with overly-long text. > Ke. wrote: > > > Damnans wrote: > > 4. The area for the artwork should not be variable, because, in order to produce optimal results, artists need to know how their illustrations are going to look on the final card. > > > This design was designed to work with current artwork and it does. > I and artists I've spoken with disagree. From an aesthetic perspective, I think the current library layout is superior. I do think you've highlighted some functional issues that need to be addressed, and I agree that the sidebar stripe of the current layout wastes space that could be used towards increasing the font size. I think the crypt layout needs work, but I like the overall concept. Artists I've spoken with have had mixed feelings about it. It does look cleaner and fresher, and it's better suited to a portrait layout (as opposed to landscape layout) than library cards. However, it doesn't work well with a lot of existing crypt portraits, particularly those with very simple/patternless/monochromatic backgrounds. If the artwork is purposefully made with the new layout in mind, it can look great - the original concept pieces using the John Van Fleet artwork are great examples. > Ke. wrote: > Again we are never going to achieve 100% perfection without someone manually laying out and sourcing artwork for all 3700 cards — and that is unlikely to happen any time soon. > Have a fixed size for the artwork. Problem 100% solved. Rather, problem currently non-existent.

> BenPeal wrote: > They're completely different card types with mechanics different enough that they warrant their own decks. I'm of the opinion that they deserve different layouts. I also believe that the current approach to artwork - portrait for crypt, landscape for library - is very effective for this purpose. > Yes, I agree that the layout should be different — however I also believe they currently are. I can try a few variations here to see how this can be improved. > BenPeal wrote: > Just because you freed up space doesn't mean you should waste it all over again. > The space is not wasted; it's used to differentiate between requirements and effects — something the current layout does very poorly. > BenPeal wrote: > I agree with Gines that it looks sloppy and unprofessional. It's an obvious fudging of the text box rules. > There is no fudging; it's an applied rule. Easily switched on or off. The same goes for the part that maximises the font size across the entire card. I would argue that we should make use of space when available and increase the font size to improve readability. If that must apply to all of the text then fine; however to stick to the same font across all card text is definitely counter productive from a readability perspective. > BenPeal wrote: > As a card designer, I think the correct solution is to not design cards that use that much text in the first place. If the game were to come back in print, I'd push for eliminating cards with overly-long text. > This is great; however it's not the current reality. The goal here is accommodate the current cards — not redesign the game (although that's a great longer term goal). With that in mind we need to account for large amounts of text. > BenPeal wrote: > I do think you've highlighted some functional issues that need to be addressed, and I agree that the sidebar stripe of the current layout wastes space that could be used towards increasing the font size. > Part of the issue here is the ratio of the artwork. It's barely landscape, the ratio is 1:15 which means it's difficult place without consuming vast amounts of text space. So conversely, the sidebar actually frees up space for text. If the artwork had a wider aspect ratio, we would have far more options. See below for example: The goal here was to refresh the design without completely changing it; so it would be familiar to current players, yet easier for new players. The new design is supposed to be similar enough to the current cards so they can also be used with the current cards (we're using them locally already). If it was to completely redesign from scratch then versions like Alt 2 and Alt 3 start to become a possibility. However with a 7+ hand size there are two rules which can not be broken: 1. Card type must be clear in hand (when fanned) 2. First few letters of card name must be visible in hand (when fanned) This limits the design options further. If I get a chance; I'll knock up some variations in the templating system. The great thing about the system is once it's done for one card; it's done for them all... Amaranth Deck Building Tool : VTES NZ : VTES ANZ Facebook

I had some time last night to explore an idea. I'll throw in more in a few days, but right now i've got a house full of nerds to entertain. treat this as a super rough sketch.

> self wrote: > I had some time last night to explore an idea. I'll throw in more in a few days, but right now i've got a house full of nerds to entertain. treat this as a super rough sketch. > I like this version too, even though I'd like more space between each block of text. Using a drop per blood cost (here: costs 2 blood) doesn't work with X costs. I don't think it's clearer than writing down a number into the drop (especially when dealing with drunk players ) Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

> self wrote: > I had some time last night to explore an idea. I'll throw in more in a few days, but right now i've got a house full of nerds to entertain. treat this as a super rough sketch. > It's effectively the same as "Alt 3" in the previous posted layouts and Ankha's design on his blog: However you've severely cropped and distorted the artwork — I doubt artists would be happy with this given the resistance to background generation. That's disregarding the clarity and readability of the text: Obviously one of the above is clearer, much easier to understand and read. Amaranth Deck Building Tool : VTES NZ : VTES ANZ Facebook

How about moving the art credit above the card text, e.g. in the lower corner of the art itself? It seems to me that the footnote wastes too much space that would be better used by text.

> Ke. wrote: > > Obviously one of the above is clearer, much easier to understand and read. > I 100% agree with you. Besides, on a larger scale, I think your layout is more in "VTES spirit", while self biased' looks too much like The Spoils template for my taste.

> Non-existant user wrote: > How about moving the art credit above the card text, e.g. in the lower corner of the art itself? It seems to me that the footnote wastes too much space that would be better used by text. > Yep, would fix generated artwork woes and would look way cleaner. Sabbat.Black Hand Shakar: Lech loathe ranged weapons. Once each action, he may burn 1 blood to become Camarilla Prince of Krakow until the end of the action.

> Lech wrote: > > > Non-existant user wrote: > > How about moving the art credit above the card text, e.g. in the lower corner of the art itself? It seems to me that the footnote wastes too much space that would be better used by text. > > > Yep, would fix generated artwork woes and would look way cleaner. > You can never know whether the background at that location will be light or dark. That means that you must write the name with an outline, and I think it will look pretty distracting. The space gained by moving the artist name would be very small anyway, and you must write the legal stuff somewhere. Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

> Ankha wrote: > > > Non-existant user wrote: > > How about moving the art credit above the card text, e.g. in the lower corner of the art itself? It seems to me that the footnote wastes too much space that would be better used by text. > > > The space gained by moving the artist name would be very small anyway, and you must write the legal stuff somewhere. > Yes, also it allows for the silver dot on most sleeves and it just feels better when holding the card (thumb overflow). I did try a few early versions leveraging this space; didn't quite work. Amaranth Deck Building Tool : VTES NZ : VTES ANZ Facebook

It might just be me, but the last several combat cards look unpleasantly bright red. This is possibly not helped by: - Basilisk's Touch having a reasonable amount of red in the picture too - a difference between RGB (on screen) and what CMYK print-outs would look like. But I find the current combat card red is more muted, and less "OMG MY EYES MY EYES". Also, a splash of bright red is currently used at the top of Event cards - which also gets more muted further down, mostly.

> jamesatzephyr wrote: > A difference between RGB (on screen) and what CMYK print-outs would look like. > With the cards on amaranth.vtes.co.nz this is the case — they are optimised for print. So on screen they appear extreme; but when printed are balanced. Also, events are now more magenta than red to differentiate with combat cards. Again these look quite garish on the site / screen; but are balanced when printed. Amaranth Deck Building Tool : VTES NZ : VTES ANZ Facebook

> Ke. wrote: > Also, events are now more magenta than red to differentiate with combat cards. > I must confess, I'm not sure why when we do have a specific and obvious colour palette for certain card types - the duller, clay red for combat, the splash of brighter red for events - it's not considered desirable to maintain those for continuity. Why move combat to bright red (a colour which was already in use), and events to hot pink? In a deck using a mix of physical cards and print-outs, it seems like it's going to make a big mess.

> jamesatzephyr wrote: > Why move combat to bright red (a colour which was already in use), and events to hot pink? In a deck using a mix of physical cards and print-outs, it seems like it's going to make a big mess. > It's not a bright red when printed; it's a dark red. A similar shift occurs with events also. It's important from a usability perspective that cards a distinguishable from one and another — yes, colour should not be solely depended upon but it helps. Ankha covers some of the reasons well here: ankhavtes.blogspot.co.nz/2016/07/redesigning-vtes-card-form.html Here's the full colour range (extremeness due to print optimisation): I would not recommend part printing the new cards — print entire decks with them. The deck looks much better and it's actually faster than building a deck from scratch with actual cards. You can print old cards using Amaranth; just click "Print Some" and check old cards — I would recommend this if you just want a couple of proxies for an existing deck or already have most of the cards ready. Amaranth Deck Building Tool : VTES NZ : VTES ANZ Facebook

Here are the best results of exploring fixed size "landscape" options: These sit in between Alt 1 & 2 in the graphic here: The "Overlay" version is designed to be more modern; where as the "Framed" version is more traditional CCG / VTES. Here are a few more of the extreme cards in this format: Currently these are just mock ups. Whether they're applied or not depends on feedback / peoples thoughts on them. I haven't yet had a chance to print them as I'm out of ink — will do so tomorrow though. Amaranth Deck Building Tool : VTES NZ : VTES ANZ Facebook

I think you achieved a great compromise with this mock-up. If it could make everyone happy and save you some time from fixing the procedural expansion of the art, I'm all in favor ! B) This said, wouldn't the card-name be more readable if it were plain black with white key line ?

Can you do version without horizontal non-transparent strip below artwork? Sabbat.Black Hand Shakar: Lech loathe ranged weapons. Once each action, he may burn 1 blood to become Camarilla Prince of Krakow until the end of the action.

> Lech wrote: > Can you do version without horizontal non-transparent strip below artwork? > +1

I found this wonderful new job, in my opnion this means the future, a new vision and easily mainly to teach new players. I took the liberty to create an album on facebook, the creator of this wonder could add me on facebook? www.facebook.com/vtessp/photos/?tab=album&album_id=1208819695836766 Desso Alastor Organized Play Coordinator VEKN Prince of São Paulo / Brazil ID#706

Hey Desso, glad you like the direction the cards are heading in. I don't do facebook sorry; however you can view and print all of the cards here: amaranth.vtes.co.nz You're welcome to share with your player base. Ke Amaranth Deck Building Tool : VTES NZ : VTES ANZ Facebook

Congratulations on the projecbrother, your website has been reported in the group of players from Brazil. Desso Alastor Organized Play Coordinator VEKN Prince of São Paulo / Brazil ID#706

Here is the new library design printed and compared to existing cards: Amaranth Deck Building Tool : VTES NZ : VTES ANZ Facebook

And some direct comparisons: Amaranth Deck Building Tool : VTES NZ : VTES ANZ Facebook

These are now live on amaranth.vtes.co.nz . Amaranth Deck Building Tool : VTES NZ : VTES ANZ Facebook

Non-unique, no cost (upper left): There is no text for the black box, so the black box is eliminated. Non-unique, cost (bottom left): There is no text for the black box, but it is created anyway and filled with redundant text. Unique, no cost (upper right): There is text for the black box (Unique), so the black box is created and filled with the text. Unique, cost (bottom right): There is text for the black box (Unique), so the black box is created and filled with the text. The redundant text is not used. There is also a sizing issue with the black box. The cards on the bottom both have a cost and one line of text for the black box, but the size of the black box is different. This is probably caused by the rules for the size of the white box. The intent behind the black box - clarity and distinction - is very good. I also agree that when properly sized, it looks nice. However, its implementation keeps causing problems. Perhaps the cost symbol should be moved away from the text box? That way there would be consistency of not creating the text box for no-unique-text, no-cost cards. It would also allow the black box text to be consistently aligned to the left with the white box text. EDIT: However, this still wouldn't resolve the issue of allies with no white box text, such as The Knights and Loyal Street Gang. Eliminate the black box and use standard bolding and this issue goes away.

> BenPeal wrote: > The intent behind the black box - clarity and distinction - is very good. I also agree that when properly sized, it looks nice. However, its implementation keeps causing problems. > I think those examples verged on individual mistake more than being a global problem. Like I said about Imbued cards, there are still many errors on those cards. (Last one spotted : Ghouled Street Thug that lacks the Pander requirement.) For me the "cost X" on black box is a remains of the first tries that has not been totally suppressed. As for the cards without text, well there is always flavor text...

> 666Raziel wrote: > > > BenPeal wrote: > > The intent behind the black box - clarity and distinction - is very good. I also agree that when properly sized, it looks nice. However, its implementation keeps causing problems. > > > I think those examples verged on individual mistake more than being a global problem. > For equipment, we have: No bold text, no cost: Agate Talisman An Anarch Manifesto Bloodstone Inscription Leather Jacket Powder of Rigidity Reliquary: Biague Writ of Acceptance No bold text, with cost: Cooler Flak Jacket Incriminating Videotape Kevlar Vest Reliquary: Trinket Vial of Elder Vitae Vial of Garou Blood Living Manse Bold text, no cost (numerous) Bold text, cost (numerous) Living Manse is an interesting example, as it has a cost but also has no black box: > As for the cards without text, well there is always flavor text... > If we're putting flavor text back on the table - and we probably should - a lot of cards change.

I'm not sure to get your point. In Ke's layout for equipment cards, bold is used only for "strike". What I wanted to say earlier is that we must not mistake one-time error and flaws in the layout. As for flavor text, it should not change the card. Let's first define a clear code of how library cards should be. Then, when everything is done, we can can return to cards that are/look empty and fill them with flavor text. EDIT : on a totally different matter, please forgive my patriotism but could we take advantage of the opportunity provided by this redesign to finally correct a typo ? The proper name for this card should be "Sacré-Cœur Cathedral, France". B)

> 666Raziel wrote: > I'm not sure to get your point. > > In Ke's layout for equipment cards, bold is used only for "strike". > What I mean is "text that would normally be bold in the official layout but goes in the black box in the proposed layout". So, things like the stat line for allies, "Unique", "Electronic", "Location", "Haven", "Animal", etc. > What I wanted to say earlier is that we must not mistake one-time error and flaws in the layout. > The same thing keeps coming up with the black text box: a box is empty because there's no text for it, so something is contrived to fill it. If the black text box didn't exist and standard bolding rules were used, there wouldn't be this invented need. And again, it's not that I think it's trying to do something bad. It's trying to do something good - increase clarity and distinction. However, cleaning up the bolding rules would also accomplish the goal of clarity and distinction, and without contriving things to put in text boxes. The examples of Loyal Street Gang and The Knights are the most egregious. They take text that would go into the black text box and instead put it into the white text box. Then instead of having no black text box at all, one is created and filled with redundant text only because that text box would otherwise be empty. I don't think there are other allies that would have this exact problem, but this problem doesn't have to exist at all. With equipment cards, there's a lack of consistency of whether there is a black text box and what goes inside it if there is one. In some circumstances, a black box is created only for the purpose of filling it with redundant text. > As for flavor text, it should not change the card. Let's first define a clear code of how library cards should be. Then, when everything is done, we can can return to cards that are/look empty and fill them with flavor text. > By "change the card", I mean the flavor text would result in size adjustments in the text boxes. And yes, I agree that we should have a clear code of what library cards should look like.

I am not in Ke's head but I don't think The Knights should be an examples of the lack of consistency. In my opinion they are just error waiting to be corrected. (No more relevant than Polaris Coach where "Haven" has been forgotten from the black box.) And if they were made that way knowingly, then we should just agree on keeping empty white box for flavor text. As for the bold text versus separate boxes, I think that the rules for the distinction will be the same in both case. But by having separate boxes, we could also use bold text in order to gain more clarity. Like it was done on weapon for Strike (even though that might be a bad example). So yes, that's a little more "work". But the result might be worth it.

> 666Raziel wrote: > I am not in Ke's head but I don't think The Knights should be an examples of the lack of consistency. > In my opinion they are just error waiting to be corrected. (No more relevant than Polaris Coach where "Haven" has been forgotten from the black box.) > > And if they were made that way knowingly, then we should just agree on keeping empty white box for flavor text. > Or have a single, white, not-ever-empty text box and use bold text for the things that need it. And also have flavor text because flavor text is cool. The black text box is a solution looking for a problem that doesn't exist.

> 666Raziel wrote: > EDIT : on a totally different matter, please forgive my patriotism but could we take advantage of the opportunity provided by this redesign to finally correct a typo ? The proper name for this card should be "Sacré-Cœur Cathedral, France". B) > That would be up to our (*ahem* very French) Rules Team. While the official rules and text of cards are in American English, I'm strongly in favor of adhering to spelling proper names in their native tongues. Well, provided the native tongues use Latin characters. When designing new cards, the Design Team has requested and welcomed such spelling corrections from our playtesters. We also do our best to determine the correct spelling when we initially design the cards, including reaching out to native speakers.

> BenPeal wrote: > > > 666Raziel wrote: > > EDIT : on a totally different matter, please forgive my patriotism but could we take advantage of the opportunity provided by this redesign to finally correct a typo ? The proper name for this card should be "Sacré-Cœur Cathedral, France". B) > > > That would be up to our (*ahem* very French) Rules Team. While the official rules and text of cards are in American English, I'm strongly in favor of adhering to spelling proper names in their native tongues. Well, provided the native tongues use Latin characters. > > When designing new cards, the Design Team has requested and welcomed such spelling corrections from our playtesters. We also do our best to determine the correct spelling when we initially design the cards, including reaching out to native speakers. > The name has been fixed a long time ago in the revised CSV, but for some reason Ke's generator doesn't use it. Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

> 666Raziel wrote: > In my opinion they are just error waiting to be corrected. (No more relevant than Polaris Coach where "Haven" has been forgotten from the black box.). > Correct; these are just bugs left over from previously having cost X / blood pool in text. This is exactly the reason I added the feedback button to cards. But here works better for such wide impacting issues (as opposed to issues with individual cards). I've corrected them and the cards are currently being regenerated and published. Main changes made: 1. All card names now use the latest text 2. More weight is given to white box 3. Equipment keyword left in place 4. Blood and pool cost now in fixed location outside of text (this was also a remnant of having cost in text) This affected about 1000 cards or so; will take about an hour for the changes to hit the site, Will ping through a message here once done. Here are a few previews: Amaranth Deck Building Tool : VTES NZ : VTES ANZ Facebook

There is a typo in Gregory Winter name located in its card-text. 1st word is "Gregoy". Also, thank you very much for the Sacré-Coeur !

> 666Raziel wrote: > There is a typo in Gregory Winter name located in its card-text. 1st word is "Gregoy". > Fixed; that error is in the source CSV — so that's one to fix Ankha. Amaranth Deck Building Tool : VTES NZ : VTES ANZ Facebook

Question : why did you remove the "+1 " icon from cards that gives capacity ? Also in parallel to the correction of cards, could we make some tries about a new representation for the stat of allies and retainers ? Even if we don't opt for a full icon system, I think that life could still be represented with a . Would it be possible to show us Carlton with only "Unique mortal with 0 strength, 0 bleed" in its black box and a at the right bottom of the card. The same thing could be done for retainer, though it will create a problem for Camarilla Vitae Slave...

> BenPeal wrote: > The same thing keeps coming up with the black text box: a box is empty because there's no text for it, so something is contrived to fill it. > This is not the case — it's there to convey important information. Previously cost was added in text to help new players but this has since been removed. There are numerous cards without the black box: Typically the black box contains "Requires x." or "Only usable by x". When it's a master card or equipment certain keywords are place in there, ie., "Trifle", "Archetype", "Weapon: gun". And when it's an Ally it has the Ally type and stats — this was based on a lot of feedback I and think it works really well in this scenario (even if not a prerequisite, it's important information). Initially I wasn't convinced about ally stats being placed there — but I was won over with good reason: Amaranth Deck Building Tool : VTES NZ : VTES ANZ Facebook

> 666Raziel wrote: > Question : why did you remove the "+1 " icon from cards that gives capacity ? > I didn't remove it. I just didn't / haven't accounted for it. Amaranth Deck Building Tool : VTES NZ : VTES ANZ Facebook

While I like newest propositions for crypt cards really nice I found library cards ... ugly. Readibility is good but not the estethics. What hurts my eyes most are: 1. Card types backgrounds. Action modifier background is nice. All the other are looking much worse than current cards. 2. Left bar Left bar was looking better when it was thicker 3. Slim stripe of background between art and card text Looks bad

> Ke. wrote: > 3. Equipment keyword left in place > Nice catch. That appears to be redundant text and I've sent it to the Rules Team for review. Another example is "Master" - you've eliminated it from master cards such as your Blooding By the Code sample. Though "Master" is a special case as master cards don't have a card type icon.

- You've moved "Master" out of the text box and have indicated it as a card type in the sidebar, consistent with other card types. It's definitely an oddity in the rules that masters don't have a card type icon and I like giving it consistent card type representation. This also frees up a row of text space. - You've expanded the text box into the bar separating the art and the text. This plus moving "Master" to the sidebar gains us font size. - You expand the text box into the side bar, but the space you gain is spent almost entirely on displaying the requirement icon. - "Master", the pool icon, and the requirement icon are not properly aligned. - The Salubri icon is displayed instead of Salubri antitribu. Also, "antitribu" is not italicized, though I suspect that's because you're working from the .csv and haven't added automatic italicization logic to your text processing yet.

Not that my opinion would matter, but so far these suggestions haven't looked like something I would want to play with. And this troubles my artistic side rather than analytical side. - I cannot stand the title overflow AT ALL. I don't know why. It looks super-ugly to me and haphazardly put together, like someone hadn't bothered to align the text. Would it look better if the title was moved towards the center a bit so it wouldn't stack with the border? - I don't like the location of the blood/pool cost in the middle of the card. to the left side. Especially when it also overflows. Its not a place I'm accustomed to for costs in any CCG that I play. I believe costs are usually located in corners of the card, to make them easy to find with the eye once you get used to it. Upper right corner for MTG, upper left or right corner (depending on card type) for netrunner, approximately lower left corner for VTES, or lower right corner for vampires capacity (essentially cost to move the vampire to ready region). - Despite my earlier post about text instead of icons, I realized having card type identifying text instead of icon in the upper left corner actually looks rather ugly. I think it would look more tolerable if the text was within the actual text box, like with old master cards. - The space between lines of text seems slightly too large, or maybe its the font. Overall impression is like comparing an easy-to-read children's book to a real novel. While it may be easy to read, it may not be everyone's cup of tea, These are just personal opinions. Smoking craters tell no tales. —Tex talks Battletech

> Ke. wrote: > > > 666Raziel wrote: > > > I REALLY like the clarity on this card. > > The overall restrictions in separate transparent area under the artwork and then the two different white boxes for normal and superior effect. > > I think that especially separating the restrictions from the discipline effects is a very good idea and one that will certainly help players understand how bleed modifiers work. Especially the newbies. > > The only thing that bugs me is the thinness of the left sidebar (which also causes the card cost to look in awkward position ie. not -centered). > Finnish Politics!

> Ke. wrote: > And when it's an Ally it has the Ally type and stats — this was based on a lot of feedback I and think it works really well in this scenario (even if not a prerequisite, it's important information). Initially I wasn't convinced about ally stats being placed there — but I was won over with good reason: > I like the one with black box much more. Having the stats separate makes it more clear. One thing I don't like in the new cards is the positioning of the text to the left side. Centering looks so much better (and i think it is the way it has been done for quite some time now in VTES). Finnish Politics!

> Lönkka wrote: > > > Ke. wrote: > > And when it's an Ally it has the Ally type and stats — this was based on a lot of feedback I and think it works really well in this scenario (even if not a prerequisite, it's important information). Initially I wasn't convinced about ally stats being placed there — but I was won over with good reason: > > > I like the one with black box much more. Having the stats separate makes it more clear. > > One thing I don't like in the new cards is the positioning of the text to the left side. Centering looks so much better (and i think it is the way it has been done for quite some time now in VTES). > There is a bias. I'd like to see the same comparison with the bold part on one line for the left version. I think it would even look better since the text size would be larger. Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

Ok, here are some thoughts gathered during the week-end. 1) It seems that the discipline icon is not always shown in "As above..." sentences. For example, in Armor of Terra , we can see it for the effect but not for the . In Bauble , there is no icon either. I don't know if this was done intentionally or not, but it shouldn't be this way. Like sect and title in crypt cards that are always bold (or not), we should either always put the icon or never. Personally, I think that we should always show the icon. It might become useful when we get bloodlines cards with different effects that are both based on the outferior level. 2) Having "+1 stealth action" in black box feels wrong because it creates many incoherence. Even if they don't require the same "element", there should be no difference between 419 Operation and Army of Rats layout. So I think that "+X stealth" should always be in the white box. This will free some space for cards like Armor of Terra or Anima Gathering . And I'm pretty sure it will be the same with cards that have 3 different action (like Clio's Kiss ). Overall, I think black box should be only used for things that concerns every cards regardless of their type. For me it would be : Non clan requirement Playability restriction ("Only usable when/if..." ; "Do not replace until...") Traits Everything else are abilities and should go in the white box. This might have some unexpected (but good) effect. Like for Abactor that should have a blackbox for "Hunt." and only +1 stealth action in its white box. 3) Now that cardtype are fully written I think that we should find a solution to make them visible without using bold text. This is particularly noticeable in Abombwe's cards where, at first sight, we see no distinction between cardtype and playability restriction. Have you try underlined text ? Or perhaps bold + underline ? 4) Now comes the part where BenPeal will jubilate. If we want to have a thorough layout, we are going to have trouble with the black box when cards have different effects with specific restriction to each. That said, I'm not giving up ! (Mostly because the current pattern is worse when it comes to consistency.) Have you try to add blackbox dedicated only to one level of discipline ? I think there are many cases (like Telepathic Misdirection ) where it can even save some space. Because we would occupy the space above the discipline icon. But i don't know if it's a good solution because there will also be the opposite. ( Predator's Transformation for instance.) EDIT : come to think of it, there would also be a problem for cards (like Hall of Hades' Court) that have global restriction and then specific restriction for each level. 5) There is something wrong with Bestow Vigor and Black Hand Ritual. (I wanted to use the comment button, but I got an error message so here I am.) EDIT 2 : BTW, Hall of Hades' Court is wrong too. The blackbox contains few information that are only applicable in the effect.

> 666Raziel wrote: > 1) It seems that the discipline icon is not always shown in "As above..." sentences. For example, in Armor of Terra , we can see it for the effect but not for the . In Bauble , there is no icon either. > I don't know if this was done intentionally or not, but it shouldn't be this way. > The CSV file does contain the discipline icons. Armor of Terra +1 stealth action. [tha] Put this card on a slave Gargoyle you control. This Gargoyle treats aggravated damage as normal damage. Burn this card if this Gargoyle goes to torpor. A Gargoyle can have only one Armor of Terra. [vis] As [tha] above, but put this card on this acting Gargoyle. [VIS] As [vis] above, and this Gargoyle can prevent 1 damage each combat. As for Bauble, since there's only one inferior level, there's no need to indicate to which level we refer to. +1 stealth action. [vic] Put this card on the acting vampire. Search your library for a non-unique, non-location equipment card and put it on another minion you control, ignoring requirements and cost. This vampire cannot take actions, block or cast votes or ballots. You can burn this card and the chosen equipment during your untap phase or when the minion with the chosen equipment leaves the controlled region. [VIC] As above, but you can burn this card and the chosen equipment at any time. Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

> Ankha wrote: > As for Bauble, since there's only one inferior level, there's no need to indicate to which level we refer to. > In that case, Armor of Terra [vis] level does not need icon because there is only 1 inferior level.

> BenPeal wrote: > You expand the text box into the side bar, but the space you gain is spent almost entirely on displaying the requirement icon. > Yes, it's now consistent with other requirement icons. It's much simpler to say to new players "Match the icons in the white box to your vampire/s to use that effect". Also, there isn't the space for it in the side bar or upper left (where it resides on vampires) — more so for dual clan cards. I quickly tested this and it was just plain weird. > BenPeal wrote: > - "Master", the pool icon, and the requirement icon are not properly aligned. > It's aligned and positioned in the same manner as the blood cost icon — which is to align with the left most part of the box. There will not always be a clan or discipline icons to align to, so aligning with these makes no sense as it would lead to inconsistency across different cards. It's current alignment also minimises the impact on the Artwork. > BenPeal wrote: > The Salubri icon is displayed instead of Salubri antitribu. > Thanks fixed. > BenPeal wrote: > Also, "antitribu" is not italicized, though I suspect that's because you're working from the .csv and haven't added automatic italicization logic to your text processing yet. > Yes, just haven't accounted for it — it's obviously a thing. Out of curiosity, why? Amaranth Deck Building Tool : VTES NZ : VTES ANZ Facebook

> Lönkka wrote: > The only thing that bugs me is the thinness of the left sidebar (which also causes the card cost to look in awkward position ie. not -centered). > Yes, I wasn't initially convinced by this — until I actually printed and used the cards. Now I think it works really well. Not only do you clearly see the sidebar in your hand, you also have a hint of the artwork. The artwork now dominates ( ) a good portion of the space and takes precedence over the card "Frame". It's not about the card frame; the frame should serve its function and help present information and the artwork prominently — like a good art gallery. When printed it retreats into the background; as it should. Amaranth Deck Building Tool : VTES NZ : VTES ANZ Facebook

> 666Raziel wrote: > 1) It seems that the discipline icon is not always shown in "As above..." sentences. > This has been fixed. > 666Raziel wrote: > Having "+1 stealth action" in black box feels wrong because it creates many incoherence. > Currently it does so when it applies to all discipline effects. It could also be expanded to also cover clan / non-disciplined actions. But I think in the majority of cases it works better as bold in these scenarios. ie. Atonement, No Secrets, Legion, Siphon... Pretty much most of them also require X. > 666Raziel wrote: > There is something wrong with Bestow Vigor and Black Hand Ritual > Thanks, fixed. Amaranth Deck Building Tool : VTES NZ : VTES ANZ Facebook

> Ke. wrote: > > > BenPeal wrote: > > You expand the text box into the side bar, but the space you gain is spent almost entirely on displaying the requirement icon. > > > Yes, it's now consistent with other requirement icons. It's much simpler to say to new players "Match the icons in the white box to your vampire/s to use that effect". > I like the idea of the visual "have this -> do this" approach. However, I'm concerned that we're losing something by moving the requirement icon out of the "cards fanned out" visual space. I think it also causes layout problems. > > BenPeal wrote: > > - "Master", the pool icon, and the requirement icon are not properly aligned. > > > It's aligned and positioned in the same manner as the blood cost icon — which is to align with the left most part of the box. There will not always be a clan or discipline icons to align to, so aligning with these makes no sense as it would lead to inconsistency across different cards. It's current alignment also minimises the impact on the Artwork. > Here's where it runs into trouble: The sidebar of the official library layout serves useful purposes. It reserves space for certain types of game information (card type, requirement, cost) and it allows for the display of that information to be tidy and orderly. I agree that in the multitudinous zero-cost cards there's a lot of space inefficiency which you're trying to address. There's also the matter of the sidebar wiping out visual card type information (the card type background) which you're also trying to address. Additionally, there's the matter of how the text is aligned on the card. In the official layout, the center-justification is tidy and orderly. In your layout, the requirement icon appears to be forcing you to use left-justification, resulting in an uneven look. In addition, the requirement icon also creates an offset from the text of the black box, again contributing to an uneven look, particlarly when compared to cards without a requirement icon. The thing is, the official layout does its job pretty well. I think if the sidebar was replaced with the card type background, the art and text boxes could be made larger and made flush with the right edge of the sidebar. While it doesn't fully address the space inefficiency of the bottom left of the card, at least that space would then be displaying visual card type information instead of a green stripe. > > BenPeal wrote: > > Also, "antitribu" is not italicized, though I suspect that's because you're working from the .csv and haven't added automatic italicization logic to your text processing yet. > > > Yes, just haven't accounted for it — it's obviously a thing. Out of curiosity, why? > I'm really not sure apart from consistency in representing the source material. I don't know why the V:tM developers italicized it in the first place. Perhaps aesthetic pretension?

Upgrade time. Our fortnightly game was cancelled this week, so I took the opportunity to improve the cards. The main change addresses layout issues; including vertical alignment. The clan requirement has also been moved to the same location as on the vampire which frees up more space for text and is logical. The design has also been reworked to allow for transparency on the main text blocks. This softens the overall tone and as a bonus highlights any icons in this area. The background is filled using a reflection of the main image — meaning that the artwork can be supplied with fixed dimensions. The position of the pool / blood cost is now fixed and pretty much centred vertically. Imbued cards improved. All these changes are now live. Amaranth Deck Building Tool : VTES NZ : VTES ANZ Facebook

Cards looks fine, but we still need way to "VTMize" the design somehow. NC Russia

> elotar wrote: > Cards looks fine, but we still need way to "VTMize" the design somehow. > I agree. I appreciate the work put into redesigning the layout of the cards. Something to consider is that the current design is a departure from the look and feel of the V:TM source material. The de-emphasis on the green/gray marble undertones at the expense of enlarging artwork that oftentimes has no thematic association with V:TM makes the new layouts look like something other than a card game based on V:TM, which in my opinion is a bad thing. And the different-colored bars for each card type are sometimes too bright and tend to clash with the enlarged artwork more than blend in. Now, the new layout isn’t all bad. For Instance, the artwork on Blood Fury captures the theme of the source material, and the red side bar complements the enlarged bloody artwork nicely. But for every Blood Fury, there’s a Seraph’s Second, in which the cartoony artwork really didn’t need to be enlarged and the dark overtones granted by the juxtaposition of the artwork to the green marble bar in the original layout are missing and replaced with warm, bright aquamarine tones in the new layout. Again, I appreciate the hard work. But the original layouts do a much better job of making V:TES look like a card game built off of somber V:TM source material. The old layouts weren't broken, and I'm not sure why they need to be fixed.

The cards look great. Will be using them at our next game. Prince of Dallas Toreador Grand Ball: Dallas August 13, 2022

Why hide the hearth have no inf val symbol in card text(and other cards too).? Sabbat.Black Hand Shakar: Lech loathe ranged weapons. Once each action, he may burn 1 blood to become Camarilla Prince of Krakow until the end of the action.

> TwoRazorReign wrote: > Again, I appreciate the hard work. But the original layouts do a much better job of making V:TES look like a card game built off of somber V:TM source material. The old layouts weren't broken, and I'm not sure why they need to be fixed. > I agree with this. "My strategy? Luck is my strategy, of course."

You agree that a fix isnt needed? I too agree. As for the redesign, its just for fun and not trying to fix anything. Play with what you like. Prince of Dallas Toreador Grand Ball: Dallas August 13, 2022

> ruiza97 wrote: > You agree that a fix isnt needed? I too agree. As for the redesign, its just for fun and not trying to fix anything. Play with what you like. > I get that people don't have to use the new layouts if they don't want. However, according to the very first post in this thread, the new layouts were intend to fix something, namely to clarify the cards and make them as clear as possible. With this intention in mind, I offer the following reactions: (1) If the idea is to clarify things, we should start with the rulebook and detailed play summary, then move onto card text and rulings, and then we can worry about the layout on the cards. Starting with clarifying card layouts is putting the cart well in front of the horse. (2) As I stated previously, the new layouts don't incorporate the look and feel of the source material as well as the old layouts. Any benefits gained by clarifying the cards are mitigated by the loss of this look and feel in my opinion. Again, I appreciate all the hard work put into the new layouts, and good for those who like the layouts. But the old layouts are just plain better.

Not a fan, sorry. Its good design but it moves the game far too much from vtes thematically.

> TwoRazorReign wrote: > > > ruiza97 wrote: > > You agree that a fix isnt needed? I too agree. As for the redesign, its just for fun and not trying to fix anything. Play with what you like. > > > I get that people don't have to use the new layouts if they don't want. However, according to the very first post in this thread, the new layouts were intend to fix something, namely to clarify the cards and make them as clear as possible. > Last time i checked Ke doesnt volunteer with VEKN. Again its fan made. If you dont want to bother, then dont bother. Prince of Dallas Toreador Grand Ball: Dallas August 13, 2022

> ruiza97 wrote: > > > TwoRazorReign wrote: > > > > > ruiza97 wrote: > > > You agree that a fix isnt needed? I too agree. As for the redesign, its just for fun and not trying to fix anything. Play with what you like. > > > > > > > > I get that people don't have to use the new layouts if they don't want. However, according to the very first post in this thread, the new layouts were intend to fix something, namely to clarify the cards and make them as clear as possible. > > > Last time i checked Ke doesnt volunteer with VEKN. Again its fan made. If you dont want to bother, then dont bother. > Last time I checked this is an internet forum about VTES where the community shares their ideas about the game. Again, it's a forum where fans discuss things. If you don't want your post about the new layouts to receive feedback, don't post your new layouts on this forum.